|
Narciss posted:In early middle school I came up with the theory that I was the only "real" person (i.e./e.g. a conscious individual with subjective experiences) that existed. Nowadays I know this is an extant theory called "Solipsism", but I had invented it independently of any outside philosophical influences. good work inventing crap as a child
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
you can see where he squeezed it no doubt twiddling it in a cliched poor imitation of groucho marx earlier
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
just so you know narciss basically everyone did that
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Accept the only truth. Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his prophet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
GrrrlSweatshirt posted:just so you know narciss basically everyone did that I didn't do that until after i learnt about solipsism
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Kleen_TheRowdyDog posted:im too depressed to be nihilist That means you're a pessimist. Nothing matters, and that's depressing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
i didn't think i was the only one to exist, but that question wasn't the forefront on my mind. i wanted to know why i existed at all as a child. my question was "why do i see out of my own eyes and not someone else's"? i still haven't gotten that question answered but it seems less important now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:i didn't think i was the only one to exist, but that question wasn't the forefront on my mind. i wanted to know why i existed at all as a child. my question was "why do i see out of my own eyes and not someone else's"? i still haven't gotten that question answered but it seems less important now. How do you know you're not seeing out of someone else's eyes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
OP is a gay furry whos admitted having fascist sympathies. If thats not proof that theres no order or reason to reality, then I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:i didn't think i was the only one to exist, but that question wasn't the forefront on my mind. i wanted to know why i existed at all as a child. my question was "why do i see out of my own eyes and not someone else's"? i still haven't gotten that question answered but it seems less important now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Applewhite posted:How do you know you're not seeing out of someone else's eyes? ya maybe my premise was wrong. maybe the whole issue is that i am seeing out of someone else's eyes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:This sort of question is what convinces me that the entire philosophical branches of metaphysics and ontology are basically completely pointless. Any time you really come up with an interesting question, it turns out that it's fundamentally unknowabley. Philosophers ought to just quit their jobs and become engineers or something. Only philosopher I really listen to is Wittgenstein. He says those kinds of questions are only misunderstandings created by unexamined use of language and I believe that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Only philosopher I really listen to is Wittgenstein. He says those kinds of questions are only misunderstandings created by unexamined use of language and I believe that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:I don't. I think Quine did everything Wittgenstein did except better, but that's just me. yea well i think theyre both fuckin nerds so put that in your pipe and smoke it poindexter
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:I don't. I think Quine did everything Wittgenstein did except better, but that's just me. I never got the sense that Quine ever had a burning desire for the truth like Wittgenstein did, he just wanted a career in philosophy, tenure at Harvard and an autobiography and everything. I read his autobiography, he led a boring life but he seemed to think it was worth writing about. Wittgenstein did way more poo poo because he actually had passion (and torment) and that is rare. Well maybe not the torment part. But the two combined.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:I never got the sense that Quine ever had a burning desire for the truth like Wittgenstein did, he just wanted a career in philosophy, tenure at Harvard and an autobiography and everything. I read his autobiography, he led a boring life but he seemed to think it was worth writing about. Wittgenstein did way more poo poo because he actually had passion (and torment) and that is rare. Well maybe not the torment part. But the two combined.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
GrrrlSweatshirt posted:just so you know narciss basically everyone did that I doubt many people (or are they?  ) did it as early as I did (elementary school).
----------------
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:What's that got to do with anything, though? They're philosophers, not rock musicians. It doesn't matter how boring their lives were, only who got it right in the end. Do you actually believe this..first of all, Wittgenstein's entire approach was based in knowing you can never "get it right in the end", philosophy was a constant process, like using a machete to cut down the constant encroach of jungle kudzu. There was nothing to get right except the initial perspective. Secondly, I think finding someone who spent their life and even sacrificed for the truth is worthy and noble and even necessary. Thirdly I admire Wittgenstein, and I think of Quine as just another paper pusher. I see a stark difference between the two. I don't see philosophy or any endeavor as some blind computational dry thing to do without considering why or what for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Passion makes for great productions, but paper pushers are the ones that actually get stuff done. If Wittgenstein really thought there was no right answer to find, then he was either stupider than I thought or actively wasting his time on something he believed was fruitless. But that's just me. I always thought that the romanticized approach to philosophy was very self-indulgent and childish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Narciss posted:I doubt many people (or are they? i dunno i thought about it a lot as a kid but realized it was really dumb when i was 11ish
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
I tried reading Nietzsche once and it was like reading reddit so I stopped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Nietzsche married a horse! I heard it in high school
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Narciss posted:I doubt many people (or are they? my apotheosis started in pre-k, human being
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:If Wittgenstein really thought there was no right answer to find, then he was either stupider than I thought or actively wasting his time on something he believed was fruitless. That doesn't necessarily logically follow. It could be that there is no right answer to find because it is humans that generate meaning. In that case meaning is subscriptive but not empty; and the attempt to add meaning to otherwise meaningless events is an end unto itself. An animal cannot show mercy, for they do not have a concept to act on. Without the idea that evil should be punished, there can be no justice. There are obviously things in this world that cannot even be envisioned until a corresponding concept has been thunk up. Whether those concepts have any rationally observable truth to them in the first place is almost irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:Passion makes for great productions, but paper pushers are the ones that actually get stuff done. If Wittgenstein really thought there was no right answer to find, then he was either stupider than I thought or actively wasting his time on something he believed was fruitless. But that's just me. I always thought that the romanticized approach to philosophy was very self-indulgent and childish. You are not understanding what I am saying about Wittgenstein and being antagonistic and trivial while doing so. Why should anyone talk with you on this subject. Most of what I see you post on this forum is similar. Why should I meet you at your level. I could respond and say "no, it's not true because of this and this" but I will get poo poo in return. This flippant poo poo. Of course philosophy matters but you don't seem to see the first thing about it, you actually have to want to understand something for yourself, not to "get stuff done". Get stuff done for what? For what purpose? Contributing to an abstract society that you never actually see? Or do you do it for you, and take others along if you can or want to. That's what Wittgenstein was about. He actually wanted to know what was going on. He spent his life doing it. He was consumed by it. This trivial poo poo you're on is grating to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:You are not understanding what I am saying about Wittgenstein and being antagonistic and trivial while doing so. Why should anyone talk with you on this subject. Most of what I see you post on this forum is similar. Why should I meet you at your level. I could respond and say "no, it's not true because of this and this" but I will get poo poo in return. This flippant poo poo. Of course philosophy matters but you don't seem to see the first thing about it, you actually have to want to understand something for yourself, not to "get stuff done". Get stuff done for what? For what purpose? Contributing to an abstract society that you never actually see? Or do you do it for you, and take others along if you can or want to. That's what Wittgenstein was about. He actually wanted to know what was going on. He spent his life doing it. He was consumed by it. This trivial poo poo you're on is grating to be honest. *nod* We're talking about big concepts here; life and love and death and poo poo. Get out of here with your trivial b*llshit that doesn't excite my undergrad sensibilities. Now if you'll excuse me, I have philosophy to do. *asks a nonsensical question* *builds off of flawed premises for decades with otherwise sound logic* ----------------
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
What does it matter if you do philosophy if it doesn't affect your life? Or more to the point, consume it? I have never had any clue how these people who are trying "to get stuff done" philosophically, what they are doing. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:What does it matter if you do philosophy if it doesn't affect your life? Or more to the point, consume it? I have never had any clue how these people who are trying "to get stuff done" philosophically, what they are doing. It makes absolutely no sense to me. If you want to ask meaningless questions like "whats the meaning of life" and then sit around tapping your foot with your hand on your chin for 40 years that's fine, just don't try and pretend it's going to benefit anyone. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Narciss posted:*nod* Oh I wasn't talking about my question anymore. Was talking about Wittgenstein's approach and how it is so quickly misunderstood. Philosophy is a constant process..confusion creeps up on you. It is not building towards anything. And problems arise when you think you are. Towards some philosophical theory of everything. He saw it in the later part of his life as "tidying up a room" and nothing more. Narciss posted:If you want to ask meaningless questions like "whats the meaning of life" and then sit around tapping your foot with your hand on your chin for 40 years that's fine, just don't try and pretend it's going to benefit anyone. I agree with you and I never ever said that in this thread. That has nothing to do with Wittgenstein either. He saw those questions as philosophically meaningless. All philosophical questions stem from some confusion (within language) or another.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
It's really your own fault for expecting a deep and meaningful discussion on philosophy in GBS. I'm killing time and you're easy to gently caress with, get over yourself.Nathilus posted:That doesn't necessarily logically follow. It could be that there is no right answer to find because it is humans that generate meaning. In that case meaning is subscriptive but not empty; and the attempt to add meaning to otherwise meaningless events is an end unto itself. An animal cannot show mercy, for they do not have a concept to act on. Without the idea that evil should be punished, there can be no justice. There are obviously things in this world that cannot even be envisioned until a corresponding concept has been thunk up. Whether those concepts have any rationally observable truth to them in the first place is almost irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:It's really your own fault for expecting a deep and meaningful discussion on philosophy in GBS. I'm killing time and you're easy to gently caress with, get over yourself. You're not loving with me...you never ironipost that I can see. You actually believe what you say and are wielding it like a blunt cudgel. And I'm not expecting further conversation, I am only responding to what I see. If it stops it stops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Apparently I'm having a bad day. Anyway Nietszche also led a boring life but he was great in his mind, and on paper. He's someone who really wanted to live, whether that is a meaningful thing to say or not, we're all living.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
i can't stop silently screaming i don't even want help at this point
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Wasn't even responding to the content as much as the tone, Cardiovorax.. Why should anyone try to have a conversation with a pissy child. If you're not trying to talk about it, why post? Saying the first tactless and thoughtless poo poo that comes to mind and expecting someone to ride it through cause you're just ~*so worth it*~? Get over yourself, actually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Apparently I'm having a bad day. Anyway Nietszche also led a boring life but he was great in his mind, and on paper. He's someone who really wanted to live, whether that is a meaningful thing to say or not, we're all living. i think he stands as a pretty prime example of what not to do. thought is an asset but it can also be a trap, and a cage. if he hadn't spent all of his time up in nihilism orthanc and had instead explored the vastness of middle-earth he might not have turned out as such a douche.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Actually I should have been more fair to Quine above but I don't even see how. He was an academic niche philosopher. He and Wittgenstein are not even in the same realm. Like they're not even doing the same thing, Quine is just following in one part of Wittgenstein's footsteps (analytic linguistic philosophy), but ignoring what actually drove Wittgenstein (a religious sentiment if anything).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:You're not loving with me...you never ironipost that I can see. You actually believe what you say and are wielding it like a blunt cudgel. And I'm not expecting further conversation, I am only responding to what I see. If it stops it stops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:Oh, I do. Well congratulations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
you both suck
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 22:00
|
|