RJT: 1, 21 Credit Semester: 0 - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- RJT: 1, 21 Credit Semester: 0
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »

Posted by Zild on Dec-21-2006 18:49:

quote:
Originally posted by RJT
Do you mean now? Because science would not exist without philosophy - The first philosophers WERE the first scientists. How familiar are you with the likes of Thales and the other presocratics?

Edit: And nothing I posted isn't "real," it's simply not your perception of how things are.

I'm actually way more into pre socratic than I am into Plato etc. Although we don't have very much from him and most of it is very cryptic I agree very much with Heraclitus. I do believe anything that anyone percieves is real. But that isn't what I meant.

Posted by infinity HiGH on Dec-21-2006 18:50:

quote:
Originally posted by tranceDJ
RJT, you should be the poster-child of the fact that you can still be a pothead and excel in school...I'm sick of people telling me I'm going to be stupid and not be able to make it through college if I smoke weed, jeesh.

haha, those people are jaded/ignorant. i know a lot of people who are potheads/crackheads (not actual crack addicts) who are really successful in university, in some of the hardest programs out there.

Posted by Zild on Dec-21-2006 18:51:

I know many successful doctors, lawyers, scientists who use marijuana and other drugs.

Posted by RJT on Dec-21-2006 18:52:

quote:
Originally posted by Zild
I'm actually way more into pre socratic than I am into Plato etc. Although we don't have very much from him and most of it is very cryptic I agree very much with Heraclitus. I do believe anything that anyone percieves is real. But that isn't what I meant.

I think the presocratics did a pretty good job of getting the ball rolling, even if I don't agree with pretty much any of the conclusions they made about reality.

The bottom line is that I think you and I have fundamentally differing views on the academic community. I don't think either of us discounts the value of the other side (I certainly have massive appreciation for anyone engaged in scientific inquiry), but we certainly view the processes in vastly different ways. Nothing wrong with that, loads of the issues between philosophers and what is generally considered the academic community have failed to be resolved for centuries - Why assume either of us could sort them out in c0r?

Cheers to the intelligent discourse though!

Posted by Zild on Dec-21-2006 18:55:

Yeah I just had to say something when I saw science being bashed. Congrats on your success and all and for having good conversation. I'm a little bored here until the next semester kicks up.

Posted by Psy-T on Dec-21-2006 18:57:

quote:
Originally posted by RJT
Certainly not! Read my follow up post

Comparing institutional motivation to personal motivation is an entirely different story.

lets continue then - how do you quantify purity (of intention, i presume) to begin with?

Posted by Zild on Dec-21-2006 18:59:

No don't do it you're going to get him started on the philosophy again.

Posted by RJT on Dec-21-2006 19:00:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
lets continue then - how do you quantify purity (of intention, i presume) to begin with?

I don't intend to quantify it at all, nor does anything I've posted in this thread indicate that I had ever planned to.

Posted by asfdz on Dec-21-2006 19:01:

One more day to go for me!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!

I understand your excitement

Posted by Zild on Dec-21-2006 19:02:

You know what classes really trip me out. Philosophy of Science classes. Shits weird.

Posted by RJT on Dec-21-2006 19:03:

quote:
Originally posted by Zild
You know what classes really trip me out. Philosophy of Science classes. Shits weird.

Just finished one yesterday

Posted by Zild on Dec-21-2006 19:04:

Yeah I noticed.

Posted by RJT on Dec-21-2006 19:05:

quote:
Originally posted by Zild
Yeah I noticed.

Clever bastard.

Posted by Zild on Dec-21-2006 19:06:

I was like hmm I know this mofo took philosophy of science and now he's using it against me. Run!

Posted by RJT on Dec-21-2006 19:07:

quote:
Originally posted by Zild
I was like hmm I know this mofo took philosophy of science and now he's using it against me. Run!

For the record, I don't work under the assumption that I'm right, usually quite the opposite - So please don't take my defense of my position as anything other than what it is - my position.

There's a rather good chance it's substantially flawed

Posted by Psy-T on Dec-21-2006 19:08:

quote:
Originally posted by RJT
I don't intend to quantify it at all, nor does anything I've posted in this thread indicate that I had ever planned to.

you said "(Philosophy)is intellectually pure, in stark opposition to the suspicious motivations behind modern chemistry". how could you determine that without quantifying or measuring the purity content of either pursuit or that of the individuals who pursue them?

Posted by Zild on Dec-21-2006 19:08:

Well thats another thing I believe. Or should I say don't believe. I don't believe in right or wrong. There is no such thing.

Posted by RJT on Dec-21-2006 19:09:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
you said "(Philosophy)is intellectually pure, in stark opposition to the suspicious motivations behind modern chemistry". how could you determine that without quantifying or measuring the purity content of either pursuit or that of the individuals who pursue them?

Please re-read the definition of science that I laid out on the 2nd page.

Posted by Orbax on Dec-21-2006 19:10:

My question is this:

Whether the reality we perceive is actually the reality, or if there really isnt a reality at all....how does that effect you? I.e., is your morality relative to the reality you perceive yourself to be in?

Posted by Psy-T on Dec-21-2006 19:10:

quote:
Originally posted by Zild
Well thats another thing I believe. Or should I say don't believe. I don't believe in right or wrong. There is no such thing.

try this hypothesis: evolution dictates right and wrong - what's right survives, what's wrong (eventually) dies.

Posted by Orbax on Dec-21-2006 19:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
try this hypothesis: evolution dictates right and wrong - what's right survives, what's wrong (eventually) dies.

might is right?

Posted by Nrg2Nfinit on Dec-21-2006 19:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
try this hypothesis: evolution dictates right and wrong - what's right survives, what's wrong (eventually) dies.

What if the environments wrong?. Then right is based on wrong.

Posted by Nrg2Nfinit on Dec-21-2006 19:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Orbax
might is right?

eveolution has nothing to do with might. It has to do with adaptability.

Posted by Orbax on Dec-21-2006 19:13:

quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
What if the environments wrong?. Then right is based on wrong.

what if our environment isnt real? Then the concept of right and wrong doesnt exist @.@

Posted by RJT on Dec-21-2006 19:13:

quote:
Originally posted by Orbax
I.e., is your morality relative to the reality you perceive yourself to be in?

IMO, yes.

Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »