Descendants of Aristotle

[Tabula Rasa]

*Puts down book called "Aristotle's First Philosophy"*

Welcome, this a club for budding philosophers and people who have a flitting interest in the subject. Please feel free to join.

[Zotar]

DUDE! you couldn't have picked a better forum to found this family....

WAIT 'till you meet Terminal Est and Miss Lockheart....

*brings Bible*

[Terminal Est]

I believe Darwin is right-but I never stated that he was, so he might not be. >_>
I do not believe in God, but that does not mean that He does not exist.
Opinion is not fact, desire and belief are not the same and all that jazz.
Oooh I wish you would have been around for the whole Twinky incident...anyways, I want to join.

So what do we do in here? Discuss general and random philosophy which shall then, and inevitably, head off into abstract and totally complicated subjects?

We need to start the ball rolling though, so, if you permit, random food for thought; Since it is socially bad mojo, stigma and whatnot, to "asssume" something about someone or something...is it still that bad if said assumption actually turns out to have been right?

[Squishy_99]

We had a debate on nuclear weapons and if we should get rid of them or not. My team won because we presented a much better argument (even the proposition said that).

My point was that nuclear weapons were to strike a hammer-blow to the enemy's system of government. Therefore the weapons hit the capital and prevent any nuclear winter from happening. I summed it up in these words:

Innocents die so that humanity may live.

Any comments? Should I have put the point even clearer?

[Miss Lockheart]

Originally Posted by Zotar

DUDE! you couldn't have picked a better forum to found this family....

WAIT 'till you meet Terminal Est and Miss Lockheart....

*brings Bible*

Eh? What have I got to do with it? XD I merely post interesting stuff every now and again.

But I'm up for some philosophical banter. I have to admit shamefully that I'm not familiar with Aristotle *winces* but I'll input what I can.

Originally Posted by Squishy_99

We had a debate on nuclear weapons and if we should get rid of them or not. My team won because we presented a much better argument (even the proposition said that).

My point was that nuclear weapons were to strike a hammer-blow to the enemy's system of government. Therefore the weapons hit the capital and prevent any nuclear winter from happening. I summed it up in these words:

Innocents die so that humanity may live.

Any comments? Should I have put the point even clearer?

In practice you're likely correct, but of course nobody's going to like the theory of it. We're supposed to be striving towards a good and peaceful planet, but humans just have too many disagreements for that. And if you're referring to Japan's continued stance on nuclear weapons then sadly I don't think that will last very long. Poor Japan

Originally Posted by Terminal Est

We need to start the ball rolling though, so, if you permit, random food for thought; Since it is socially bad mojo, stigma and whatnot, to "asssume" something about someone or something...is it still that bad if said assumption actually turns out to have been right?

Nah I don't think so. Assumptions are dangerous, but if it's a correct assumption then that could in some cases be beneficial. If a guy's following you and you assume from the way he's dressed that he's a thug, then why is that bad? And if you're right then you're saving yourself. Kindof a nifty safety mechanism really, regardless of the context.

[Zotar]

"So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."

2 Corinthians 4:18 (NIV)

[JET73L]

I'm up for philosophy. I'd prefer to avoid some things (mainly stuff that is classified under "religion" [which is technically philosophy, but is typically considered separate nowadays] or "politics" [which isn't philosophy anyway]). I'm always up for some random meta-thought chatter, though

[Tabula Rasa]

Okay, here's a question:


Is metaphysics a dying form of philosophy?


I'm gonna quote something from an introduction by John Mullarkey in a Bergsonian Metaphysics books I'm reading -

"Nietzsche was already three years in the grave and some would have said that all philosophical pretension to "the Absolute" had gone to the grave with him. In addition to this, Neo-Kantian scepticism was already well established in the academy, the Husserlian onslaught against the old philosophy was quietly getting under way, and soon enough Bertrand Russell would generalize an anti-Hegelian critique into a widespread attack on all metaphysical research in the favors of the twin endeavors of logic and physics alone."

I just find it sad that science and logic are shoving old philosophical views (e.g. the transcendental, the super sensory, deduction, the a priori etc.) and religious views (the soul, reincarnation, Gods etc.) into extinction.

Does anyone have any views to share? Or would you agree that I'm just babbling?

[Terminal Est]

I sort of agree, because no matter how advanced science and psychology are, or no matter how much as so we believe it to be, nobody can really explain gods, souls and whatnot...although I believe that philosophy was what we called psychology before we knew what the latter was, its elaboration and centuries of tweaking if you will, has given rise to plenty of thought provoking dilemmas and suggestions which have yet to be solved or truly answered, when looking at all the annoying analogies and metaphors. :/
It still serves the purpose to seek and delve into things which, so far, have no other ways to be discussed.

There are plenty of things which cannot be explained or properly analyzed through physics or psychology, so I do not think that philosophies of old should be so quickly dismissed, especially when it helped to further the knowledge we DO have today.
If it IS the evolution of analysis and thought process, then it is a bad thing indeed to forget what eventually gave rise to it today.

I do believe that famous philosophers and their ideals are still being presented in the fields of education though, and even if those are treated in the same means as learning proper grammar, not all hope is lost, as many people inevitably become interested and pursue it further.

Innocents die so that humanity may live.

Any comments? Should I have put the point even clearer?

Such a quote reminds me of a famous "Gone with the Wind" quote; To die for one's country is to live forever.

Eh, seems heavily politically motivational to me, like a form of inspiration, but I do agree with it, that is the technical side of it, since many people ARE threats to others, and need be dealt with, somehow...even if they think the same of us.

Nah I don't think so. Assumptions are dangerous, but if it's a correct assumption then that could in some cases be beneficial. If a guy's following you and you assume from the way he's dressed that he's a thug, then why is that bad? And if you're right then you're saving yourself. Kindof a nifty safety mechanism really, regardless of the context.

Ah, but I had assumed that the context would make the entire difference...an assumption really becomes less than that and something else when you perceive your safety to be jeopardized, a lot more instinctive than merely assuming that the new girl at work is probably a bitch. I meant more along those lines, but thinking about it, you may just be right...gossip and backstabbing among fellow work mates may be survival on its own, as I sort of figured out last year when I said, I QUIT lulz. Reputation, like physical safety, is just as important, in this day and age.
I think you are right, it must all amount to the same, as far as defense mechanism goes, only on different levels and aspects...else why would we do it? The repercussions of being wrong in one's assumption however, I am now wondering about. :/
What purpose does it serve?

Besides, right or wrong in one's assumption and confirmed as either one, who is to say what is morally right or wrong, despite society's more than blatant set of standards thereof? I thought it was a trick question, but every way I look at it, confirmation does not seem to matter, as we would play it the same way even were it writ in stone.