[quote name='"GGrass"']Can we be philosophical about food? I think we can. There are so much to think about in foods. What is it? How does it taste? What does it look like? What does it smell like? What is its nutritiousness? What's it good for? How much does it cost? Is it easy to chew? Is it easy to digest? Man, there are so much to think about...[/quote] Where did it come from? Whats its nutritional value? Will it turn my shit a different color? Is it edible? Will my stomach let me eat this? Youtube: Shoenice22... is any of that food? [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-y6f0g5odk&feature=relmfu[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijk-hweDRRw&feature=relmfu[/ame]
Why do we know it as "apple?" Did you agree on this? How many people had to agree in order for that object to be known as "apple?"
Okay... so no response? You make a positive assertion that "we are God" - so, inorder to elucidate your stance, I ask you what is "God", but no response. I also demonstrated why the word "interpret" is more fitting, when regarding "good" & "evil", than "recognition", and u asked what I meant by this, to which I responded thoroughly, but still no response... okay, good "philosophical" chat, bro.
I dont know if u put quotations around bro because u think I'm mocking u, or, if ur mocking me; just want to make things clear, it's all love on this side, dude.
What do you mean brah? We observe a fruit which possesses certain qualities and we're able to differentiate these properties from other properties [of other fruits]. The label "apple" is born.
You are, I am, We are. The universe manifests itself within all of life, but we are the only one with the minds capable of manifesting our own universes… our own realities. I am skeptical in believing aesthetical values, because they are too individual. I believe in universal “beauty.†I can recognize the rose, recognize its different parts, recognize its interactions with animals such as bees, recognize the cellular structures that make up the rose. Can I not do all of these without recognizing its “beauty?†I wasn't talking about the different qualities, my apologies if I gave that vibe off. If an apple wasn't an apple, would the word apple be nonsense? We agree that “aâ€, “pâ€, “lâ€, “e†are symbols that represent sounds, but why did we agree on these? Is that the benefit of discovering something new, that you get to create your own name?
"A rose by any other name, is still a rose" Who cares what people call it or name it? If an apple wasn't an apple, the word either wouldn't exist, or it would mean something else, and we would be pondering how THAT meaning came to be. MEANINGS came first, then words came later to give verbal existence to that meaning. So really, words are useless, same with the sounds that create the words. It's just a physical manifestation of the thoughts we wish to communicate. Apples would still be around for giraffes to eat if humans weren't around to call it 'Apple'. The name doesn't define the object, if that's your point. The object creates the name. Sorry if this isn't at all what you meant, I guess I'm not totally sure what you're asking/thinking.
how would you know how to name something if no one had ever done it before? do you define things simply or in depth? one word or an entire sentence? does it depend on your mood when you name something? would your mood effect the choice of consonance and vowels you used?
Lol I hope you're just asking these questions simply because it relates to the trivialty of this thread... But in response to your question...like yeah...I dunno the origins of the word apple, but hey, our language had to evolve somehow.
if i don't know the origins, that means someone else is responsible for creating my "reality" doesn't it? or at least the reality with which i wish to communicate with us?
Well they (whoever they are) were the creators of our language. Not sure where you're going with this though.
There exists things outside of the mind... we don't, solely, "create" our reality. The thing-in-itself is outside of the mind, which subsists in thee intangible database(the world of essence); when a thing-in-itself is subject to perception, it is render an object within the world of appearance. So, the mind is imposing structure onto the thing-in-itself, as well as the thing-in-itself onto the mind. It's like this... the thing-in-itself is the DVD, and the mind is the DVD player; the footage "ON" the DVD, not the DVD itself, are the objects - like a "red cup". Now, if there was NO DVD player, no minds, how much of a reality would that "intangible" footage, appearances of objects, be, without any DVD player to interpret the DVD's message? The DVD player, the mind, is pre-hardwired, in regards, on how to "recognize" the data being manifested - the thing-in-itself. "Reality" adheres to the dictates of the perceivers perception(The DVD player) of the thing-in-itself. So, we don't create reality in essence, we perceive it in appearance...
You're most welcome. I've been following the dialogue between you and fatbluntsyo and I find it quite interesting, although I must admit, I have very little clue as to what you guys are saying. Well, I know what you're talking about, you're talking about reality and stuff, but I just don't fully get what you're saying... not that you guys are saying it wrong, but it's a difficult subject. But the DVD player... I get it. We're like the DVD player, decoding the message in the DVDs... And even there was no DVD player, the movie is still there, it's just that there's no DVD player to play it. -- I think we've evolved a lot from being 'an actor in a play' in the old days to a DVD player with multi-function remote control.