I'm basically writing, "I BELIEVE IN WHAT CAN BE PROVEN BECAUSE THATS THE ONLY LOGICAL REASON TO BELIEVE LOL," albeit a bit longer and without caps lock on.
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by Lews
I'm basically writing, "I BELIEVE IN WHAT CAN BE PROVEN BECAUSE THATS THE ONLY LOGICAL REASON TO BELIEVE LOL," albeit a bit longer and without caps lock on.
YOU'RE MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE! NOTHING CONFERS LEGITIMACY TO AN OPINION BETTER THAN CAPITAL LETTERS.
OH, AND LORD OF BASS!
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Lews
Lira, what the is it asking me? :(
Well, it's asking you that if you regard yourself as a non-religious person, you should state what you regard as the most comprehensive reality that frames or transcends your own existence and describe what you take to be its essential features or attributes :p
I wouldn't take the Cartesian route because if you do/did, you're bound to face the same problems René did, reason why much of the most interesting philosophy of the previous century is essentially anti-Cartesian (this is true of both existentialism and pragmatism, for example).
The viable solutions I see are:
Regard the question as being nonsensical: You can always say that there's no "most comprehensive reality" as reality is in general pretty comprehensive (then you go on to define reality) and it's not exactly something that can (be) transcend(ed).
Go metaphysical: Pick your favourite natural metaphysics and try to stand for it. James' "Neutral Monism/Experiential Pluralism" and/or Davidson's "Anomalous Monism" would be two possible starting points... and build your arguments from there. This is sort of what you did, I believe.
Combine both approaches: Regard the question as being nonsensical and metaphysically destroy supernatural metaphysics :p
Late, I know, but I was unconscious in my bed when you posted the question :D
Edit: Always go berserk on language when people talk about religion. It's quite easy to show how religion depends on language more than on anything else.
quote:
Originally posted by Moongoose
Make some outrageous up, and when/if you get an F sue for religious persecution.
That'd be great :stongue:
pkcRAISTLIN
I have no idea what lira just said, but I suspect it’s bollocks, because that’s what 99% of philosophy is. the 1% that isn’t bollocks is called political science.
tubularbills
I figure Jake would make his own thread on this, but i can't get the bassline out of my head.
thanks Jake:stongue:
Ang ' ela_ie
What the fuuuuuuuuuck
bas
NOOOO :stongue:
Sushipunk
quote:
Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie
What the fuuuuuuuuuck
Loldrugs.
EgosXII
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I have no idea what lira just said, but I suspect it’s bollocks, because that’s what 99% of philosophy is. the 1% that isn’t bollocks is called political science.
Ey, buddy, philosophy spawned all rational thought movements, including your precious science and mathematics. It's an all-encompassing field essentially covering every area of human study, and you might not like metaphysical areas which is fair enough, but its silly to say all philosophy is bollocks since all it is is a rational consideration of perceptions (physical and otherwise). Give it some respect, fooooool :toocool:
political science is pretty good though, that's why i did politics AND philosophy :gsmile:
philosophy didn’t create the wheel or discover fire either. philosophy didn’t build the pyramids. Philosophy created a generation of pot smoking hippies.
Halcyon+On+On
quote:
Originally posted by Sushipunk
Loldrugs.
WHOA! It looks as though her face caught on fire and then somebody put it out with another fire.
Sushipunk
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
WHOA! It looks as though her face caught on fire and then somebody put it out with another fire.
