How deep do you blades really think?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Insurgency, Sep 1, 2010.

  1. #81 mrgoodsmoke, Sep 4, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2010
    Jesus guys stop running around in circles.

    Argument for identity, or equality, or whatever you wanna call it:

    We understand the world through propositional knowledge.
    Propositional knowledge is always accompanied by the fact that it can be quantified.
    Quantification requires us to stipulate that the relevant properties, (or those particular properties in question), are identical so that we can fit them into a formal notation.
    Therefore, an identity theory is established based on that stipulation.
    Resting on that theory, science and mathematics make progress, and we can construct an ontology.

    Argument against identity, or equality or whatever you wanna call it:
    The statement x=x is a quantification of identity.
    No two objects can occupy the same place in space and time.
    Because of that, no two objects in the physical world can ever have 100% identity of properties.
    Therefore, x=x, or identity, is a metaphysical construct, or an ideal, and does not ever actually occur in the physical world.

    The end.

    Another philosophy minute, brought to you by MrGoodSmoke.

    Next week's possible subject: "constructing ontologies: is there an irreducible, fundamental property of all objects both physical and metaphysical?"

    Are you guys gonna keep ignoring me? I thought we were gonna do some philosophy!!!

    Oh yeah about about that question on human essence.....

    Sartre said that existence precedes essence.
    Existence is the same.
    Essence is not.
    (is his view).

    Some people argue against essentialism altogether, as according to Kant, the thing in itself is unknowable.
  2. #82 Insurgency, Sep 4, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2010
    social: experiences, likes, dislikes, thoughts. physical: looks, physical conditions, mental, sexual choices. Actions can be both, because where you grow up in society, youre actions are based on your experiences. If you are rich, you will have certain experiences that a poor person wouldnt have, and vice versa.

    SO, after physical, social, and economical differences, what else is there to cause conflict?

    ^^Good post mrgoodsmoke
  3. There would be nothing left of the human race if that were true. I don't get what you're getting at :confused:
  4. In a world of pure abstractions, I imagine that conflicts could be a result of variances in the accessible doxastic alternatives for a given individual. They could conflict with themselves, with another individual, or with the world as it actually is.

    Edit: to be fair to Kant above, I have to mention that I don't think that he himself would have argued against essentialism, he woulda done that whole qua noumena schpeel and said essences are real just not accessible empirically.
  5. Sorry, offline a few days.

    Now some of you were arguing towards my next question.

    If all of mankind became educated, could this cause more reasonable beings? Maybe if we all became educated, the ones who still chose to be irrational would be eliminated, leaving only rational beings :D Social Darwinism!
  6. Where are you getting these question?

    If they're from a philosophy professor, I'd like to talk to that person.

  7. I am in multiple courses of Ancient and Medieval political philosophy, so some of these questions are presented by Plato and Aristotle, but some are asked by me
  8. Here's one of my favorite images regarding plato.

    Attached Files:

  9. I think uneducated human nature is violent, and unfortunetly the dumb are usually stronger than the more intelligent. Maybe 1st worlds would be together as a group and 3rd worlds wouldn't?
  10. If they were "Super smart" wouldn't they just work together and get off this damn island?!:smoke:
  11. Would you guys want to start a discussion on defining the term "Justice"?

    could be fun :D
  12. Justice is whatever someone thinks is fair. If society needs they make a broader definition of justice for the purpose of law.

    Also, I think deeper than shit *(in response to thread title)
  13. we are the first form of intelligent life (as far as we know). we are a mere trial process in the course of evolution, just like the first product windows comes out with, its got to patched and improved upon.

  14. I think we all have different opinions on what is fair.

    I believe justice is being rational, and acting towards whatever benefits society as a whole, rather than certain groups.

  15. Let me ask you a question. If someone has their own definition of justice and live in a society that comes into conflict with what they believe is just, is it unjust to go against the laws that are set in their society which they have followed their entire life but only recently become in conflict with them?

  16. that depends on if the laws set in their society are just [​IMG]

  17. What if they believed it was just but once they learned more about themselves they have come to realize it is no longer just to their new definition of just? Is it unjust to not follow the laws even though he had his entire life until it becomes no longer just from what he had recently learned about what he believes is truly just to himself? (This isn't about marijuana, although it could apply, I'm talking more in general and thinking of it more in Aristotle and Platos time.)

  18. Haha. I think this issue is a hidden message in Plato's separating individuals into guardians and workers.

    I personally think Justice is for the interest of the strong. So if this person you are talking about comes into conflict with this Justice, then he is not part of the strong. If he is in the lower class then he is in the working class. Therefore, it is unjust to not follow the laws with there new personal just.

  19. What is just for a person should be all that matters. It shouldn't matter what class you are in or if you are among the "strong." What is just is not in the interests of the strong because that is such a vague group. Each person should act on what they believe is just and they should believe they are the "strong." laws are set by what the majority usually thinks is just but there is also a personal just and that is what the individual should follow. For most people it is a personal thing to follow the laws so that is part of their personal belief of what is just. I think your thoughts with classes being a factor of what is just is nonsense and for the individual that shouldn't matter at all.

  20. Hey fat blunts I want to know what you think, let's keep this going

Share This Page