Contacting Slinov
Send message Forward
Add to friends Favorites
Add to group Block user
Friday, October 03, 2008

Philosophy thing

Views: 216
Comments: 0
Copy and pasted from facebook :)

Well, yeah, i thought it'd be a bit of fun to all of those out there who know and do and are good at philosophy to comment and destroy my philosophical outlooks on certain things.

I do realize that these are all flawed in so many ways, but i do believe that philosophy evolves through debate and destruction. So, here we go.

A bit of a big thing first, God. That's right, my view on God or any kind of spiritual being. Now, if you're christian, i understand that a crusade is heading my way, because i am here to disprove the belief in God.

Strictly, a christian is someone who believes either in God, or the resurrection of Christ himself. Lets look at belief for a second, shall we?

Belief in itself, is flawed. How? It's quite simple. Allow me to explain. Humans themselves, despite knowing something to be true, can quite simply state that they "Do not believe it". For example, the July 7th bombings, people were stating that they "could not believe it". "Alas Eli, that is a statement, it cannot be perceived as true at all!" I hear you screaming at your computer screens, just waiting to click "Post comment" and destroy me in such a way. But this use of statement is human nature. Nothing we know we believe as true until factual proof is given, so until the point of that factual proof being given, we are unsure as to it's truth. I do understand this is taking a rather empirical route on the subject, but nevertheless, it gets the point across.
Belief, can also be dis-spelled with another simple example. Children (aww, aren't they cute ;D) can be brought up to believe that their adoptive parents are their biological ones. This lie is proof that belief can be flawed, because despite believing something is true, it is not. I do realize, that what you define as "parent" comes into play, whether it be someone who takes care of the child all of their life, or with DNA, but DNA speaking, until someone has received a DNA test, they are unaware. (Unless told by the parents otherwise) Innate ideas also don't come into play here, as a child would instantly reject the adoptive parent if they knew who their parents truly were. The two examples (which made a lot more sense inside my head XD) show how i feel that a belief in God is ultimately flawed. We believe that God exists due our parents and teachers telling us that God is this brilliant magical figure who makes these lovely things. They only know because of their parents and teachers, all the way back to those who originally were there.
The storytellers were most likely the original preachers who wanted to catch people with stories of "Mr Magical Jesus Christ and his walk on water party trick".

I know Craigo, Luke, Megan, Josie, James and everyone is going to absolutely DESTROY that argument, but if it further helps my understanding, then i think it'll help right?

Onto the next thing.

Now, this i haven't really had much to think about, as I've spent most of the day constructing my argument about God in my head with relevant examples, and so, we go, onto Morality and how we should all behave to each other.

Now, I do not know if I am in a dream world, or sleep like state, dreaming I am doing things or not. Descartes much? I think so. ;D

So, with this in mind (me being in a constant dream) i should be able to conduct anything and everything i please, only to wake up some seconds later to hear myself saying "What a wonderful dream, i set fire to an orphanage and made love to hundreds of beautiful women whilst eating mashed potato and playing on my xbox360".

With this in mind, my dreamworld should be a type of near reality place where i can conduct anything. If this is true, then i should surely have no morals (no difference, I'm sure you'll agree) and do as i please, when i please. I should be out right now having sex with under 5's whilst desecrating graves with excrement and pushing my clenched fist into the faces of pensioners to go and score some smack.

However, we all know this is false. Or do we?

With no way to distinguish between this supposed dream and reality world, then how do we know when reality becomes dream, and vice versa?

Honestly, I have no idea. With no way to determine, then the only way we could figure it out is if we ask in possible reality about things that happened in the dream world. But again, no way to distinguish means that you wouldn't know if you were asking dream me about the time you nearly crashed your car, or reality me.

I just realized i covered some existence stuff there. Which was a bit silly, i rambled on off topic. But still, you get the idea right? If we're in our dream worlds then it is morally acceptable to do what we please when. But with no idea or way to prove that we're not brains in jars being pumped occasional stimuli, it would be morally acceptable to be politically correct, dress well, and abide law, just to be on the safe side.

And finally, something that has plagued me, the theory of knowledge.

"Oh hooray" i hear craigo mutter, cracking his readied typing fingers, knowing that yet another horribly flawed argument is coming along for him to take giant steaming shits all over.

Well, in all honesty, Rationalism and Empiricism are very complicated as is. To be honest, i appear in my mind, to be a bit empiricist, even though i fully respect rationality. For example, the idea of innate ideas, that babies know who their mothers are etc, i feel doesn't really exist, as the only reason i know who my mother is, is due to me being told who she is all my life. I agree that there is a maternal parent/child bonding, but this is only due to the child being placed in it's mother's arms after birth. (yes, i know that's probably wrong ;D)
Another example. The idea of 2+2=4. Yeah. I said it. I know that wherever you go, this will always stay constant. But with humans, i feel that to know 2+2=4 is to have experienced it. I didn't know 2+2=4 was true until i had counted it on my fingers. I don't however believe that to make sure it's true, i have to keep on asserting that i know this knowledge. 2+2=4 is very much like an Analytical Proposition. the subject "2+2" is the same as it's predicate "4". Because 2x2 is 4, the subject represents or is the definition of 4 (in a way). It's the same (in a way) as the analytical proposition "All Bachelors are unmarried men". The subject is the same as the predicate.
But anyway, unless you have experienced a lot of things, then you can't know them to be true. I do realize that this is opening up a huge tin of worms that will infest my rotting corpse until my brain explodes, but it just seems that way to me. I like to think however, in a rational way, that triangles, no matter what, will have 3 sides with an inside angle of 180 degrees. Even if we find an alien race, who's name for triangle is m'gumbak, the shape of a triangle will still have an inside angle of 180. I won't have to go to planet P'a't'ratttttt and go measure a load of m'gumbaks to find out, because it's constant.

Well, that's pretty much all of it. I know pretty much none of it makes any sense whatsoever, i also understand that it's flawed in so many ways. But what i want you to remember, is that i did this for fun, and that i don't want to be seen as preaching this as truth. Nothing I've said here should be perceived as truth (unless you stop perceiving it, then it goes away (except for God, honest ;D)) because i saw it as a bit of fun. I basically had a little epiphany whilst bored in philosophy and spent 3 hours thinking about things. I have posted this to let people further my understanding of philosophy and to help me further my theories.

Cheers. Eli x

7:59 am - 0 comments - 0 Kudos - Report!
Post your comment