Philosophic clichés I am Tired of.

[Terminal Est]

Is the glass half empty, or might it be half full?

Quite frankly, this question means nothing at all to me, and neither do the answers people give it. It is indeed a far stretch from measuring one's outlook on life in general, and often attributed to a shallow arrow pointing at the self to either further one's image as a bouncy happy butterfly or a grim and depressed angsty. Nobody cares about the philosophic value this question has, but instead use it as an opportunity to further their own social image.

Might be all that matters in the end though...sigh.

Be that as it may, I propose that I do not give a rat's ass how much is within the glass, be it a few drops or overflowing. To truly discern the value of the age old sentence, I believe, although it may contradict my beliefs to begin with, that these days it is what is within the glass that is important. This will force people to really think a lot more about how much of it, or how little, they wish to drink.

Allow me to contradict myself once more. If a tree within a forest falls, and there is nobody to hear it fall, does it still make a sound?

I cannot comprehend, for the life of me, how it is that such a question has baffled man for centuries. Am I just stupid or is this really easy? Of course it makes noise. By logic, a tree will make noise once it falls, we do not need witnesses to know that. And even were it not for the technicalities of the matter, it is quite obvious that this questions is always answered in to what may pertain to human denial and self conviction. Just because we do not see or understand something, this does not mean that it cannot happen, or be real.

You are reading this from someone who believes in absolutely nothing, so I do not see why it is so hard to get, lest I am completely mental and run by a logic which only makes sense to me. Then again, with this question, I believe this is what people do all the time. I mean, perhaps not everything is as it seems.

I am quite sane, I assure you.

Next, what came first, the egg or the chicken? Bacteria in the water or walking fish? Actually I have no clue, some suggestions, perhaps?

[Son of Sephiroth]

the egg which was layed by the creature most like a chicken without being a chicken contained the first chicken inside so neither came first in the strictest sense.

[Revenant]

One thing I know for sure: First was a chicken!

[Miss Lockheart]

It'll all turn out alright in the end.

Whoever tells you that is a liar!!!!!

[JET73L]

Originally Posted by Terminal Est

Is the glass half empty, or might it be half full?

If it's being filled, it's half full. If it's being emptied, it's half empty. I don;t know if this makes me out to be a cynic or an occasional optimist (as opposed to still half empty or still half full, respectively)

Originally Posted by Terminal Est

If a tree within a forest falls, and there is nobody to hear it fall, does it still make a sound?

The question wa most likely to do with quantum, the stupidity of whgich was intentionally shown by Schrodinger's cat experiment (if I recall correctly, the experement wwas proposd by him specifically to show how stupid quantim is when reflected on a macroscopic level). If it refers to quantum, if there was a tree to fall, and it siimply wasn;t later observed as having fallenin the past, then yes, there was a sound. If it refers to human perceptiuon, and how we simplify things by giving them names, and that nthing that actually hears was in hearing range, then no, it did not make a sound, it merely made a wave trhrough the air that could have been percieved as sound.

Originally Posted by Terminal Est

what came first, the egg or the chicken? Bacteria in the water or walking fish? Actually I have no clue, some suggestions, perhaps?

If you believe in pure creationism, with the whole seven days thing, then the chicken prbably came first. If you believe in evolution, then the egg came first. Either the egg in general, from fish and reptiles, or the chicken egg, from which the first chichen (not technically possible) hatchyed, the egg having been laid by a chicken-like creature (the "first chicken in evcolution" thing is impossible. There is no way to specify which chi9cken-like creature was he first chicken. It's like the How many angels can dance on the head of a pin question {the answer, by the way, is six. Stole it from dogbert. That, by the way, is assumig angels exist, have no definite size, and can dance in the first place}). I do not, however, understand exactly what you are asking about the underwqater bacteria or walking fish question. Please explain.

[Terminal Est]

If we believe in evolution, then life started as bacteria within the water, which eventually grew into more significant lifeforms, and the first thing that crawled out of the water was a fish, which eventually became the dinosaurs. Somewhere along the way, came the weird chicken of which you spoke, so if we take the rope by one end to the other, it does not seem to matter that the egg or the chicken came first before one another, because neither were the first at all, into which philosophical context most people think of when they think of the question and what they answer.

[JET73L]

Right. I was stating how the question could only be answered properly under impossible or theological conditions. There was no distinguishable first chicken, and saying "the gd/gods/spirits/magic did it" is frowned upon by philosophers ans scientists alike.

[NeoFighter5]

either your communication skills are too sophisticated, or im truly and idiot. . .for i do not understand what's going on here. . .only parts of it. . .

however, this type of question to me are:
1: stupid. no offense. it is simply amazing to me some one would ask such a question. like you have already mention, the answer is either scientifical, theological, or impossible in our reality. . .this concerning the chicken and egg question.
2: a waste of time.

other questions i found annoying: "why did the chicken cross the street?", "what wheights more, a ton of feathers or a ton of rocks?", "what color was napoleon's white horse?" as well as the aformentioned "if a tree falls on a forest, and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?"

idiocy at its best.

again, no offense to anyone. . .i simply find no logical reason to ask this questions.

[Terminal Est]

Right. I was stating how the question could only be answered properly under impossible or theological conditions.

How can it truly be answered under ''impossible'' conditions? Even theology does not delve into the authenticity of spiritual belief, more then it does study how it might have come about.

again, no offense to anyone. . .i simply find no logical reason to ask this questions.

I have tried to shed some logic upon them. But of course, even social science is not determined. But, tis' not as bad as to literally include these as legitimate barometric insights used for psychological analyzation. :/

[JET73L]

Yeah. I seem to have been unclear on that. The impossible was referring to the evolution aspect. It assumes all chickens, past and present, were descended from one chicken, rather than several generations of chicken-like creatures becoming more and more chicken like until they were genetically different enough to be unable to breed with the other branches of chicken-like creatures, but genetically similar to modern chickens, or at leas the first creature humans called a chicken. Which reminds me, there;'s also a linguistinc qanswer the the chicken/egg question, which depends if the woird egg or the word chicken was first used for its current english definition.

Also, as to the questions Terminal mentioned four posts up, the first and third questions (and possibly the second, I dion;t know the answer) were trick questions thought up and/or by someone who either liked making people feel foolish, or had no sense of humor whatsoever (see footnote 1 for reference to ton of rocks/ton of feathers). I don;t know the generally accepted answer to the napoleon;s horse question, si I can;t make a valid statement on it.


Footnote 1: it is either a trick question (if you don;t know, we could see which is heaier by dropping them both on your foot, a version of the pound of lead/pound o feathers) or is a reference to avordupois pounds (for wheing most objects and materials) and troy pounds (gold) for being slightly different.