|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
zenux
Posts: 1821
Location: lɘɒɿƨI
|
 Posted: Tue, 20th May 2025 22:07 Post subject: Bertrand Russell's chicken |
|
 |
I have just learnt today, along with having a spacefaring teapot, Bertrand Russell had affinity for fowl.
Just another philosophical analogy of his:
| Quote: |
“The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken.”
― Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy
|
| Quote: |
Turkey illusion is a cognitive bias describing the surprise resulting from a break in a trend, if one does not know the causes or the framework conditions for this trend.[1] The concept was first introduced by Bertrand Russell[2] to illustrate a problem with inductive reasoning.
Relevant disciplines for uncovering such biases include psychology and behavioral economics.[1]
The story
In a variation from Russell's original, a turkey designated for Thanksgiving is fed and cared for every day until it is slaughtered.[3][4] With each feeding, its certainty or confidence that nothing will happen to it increases, based on past experience. From the turkey's point of view, the certainty that it will be fed and cared for again the next day is greatest on the night before it dies, of all days. Nevertheless, it is slaughtered that day, by the very person who cared for it.
Interpretation
The slaughter comes as a complete surprise to the turkey, who - in anthropomorphic formulation - "only extrapolates a trend" and "does not recognize the impending trend break". To recognize this trend break, the turkey would have had to find out the causes of the trend. By doing so, it would have known about the motivational state of the human who feeds it every day. In order to "think outside the box" and leave known or familiar thought patterns, creativity and the ability to change perspectives are necessary. This was not possible for the turkey due to insufficient information
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_illusion
Edit: title
Last edited by zenux on Wed, 21st May 2025 20:25; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14202
|
| Posted: Tue, 20th May 2025 22:23 Post subject: |
|
|
Good find. Never heard about this.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 20th May 2025 22:42 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't get it. "This was not possible for the turkey due to insufficient information", Wouldn't it be insufficient ability? If the turkey could talk, he at some point would have asked the man why he took him in and was feeding him.
And if the man lied, it isn't lack of thinking to question patterns for information, it would lack of honesty in that information he gathered. So not seeking information then isn't the flaw of why he didn't know his fate. (He can not know his fate in more ways that just not caring to find out).
I guess the 'insufficient information' is meant to convey someone's lack of attempt to find the information? If so the analogy breaks down when you say the reason the turkey didn't know, was due to insufficient information (that he could not gather, and not just didn't find the urge to).
And this part is taking a HUGE assumption of the turkey "the certainty that it will be fed and cared for again the next day is greatest on the night before it dies"
It's stated as a given, a 'goes without saying'. When it could be, that it's last day before dying is the least confident.
As it has been thinking, given he has no information to form why free food shows up: "Surely this free food cannot go on forever?" Spending each day in anticipation that the free ride doesn't show and he goes hungry. It could be the day hes LEAST confident he will be feed, as the coin has flipped heads 100's of times now (so to speak). Each day more surprised it STILL showed up.
Maybe its the way I think. Patterns of repetition without outside confirmation of why, to me, causes me to expect it break that pattern at some point. Each next one being LESS likely, if truly unguided by a purpose.
A thing with no stated cause, builds no anticipation of it repeating as surely as last time to me. If anything I go "Surely it can't roll heads again without a pusher skewing it". And if it does, I look for a causal effect to justify my hunch of this is not a random streaks of 'success'.
Or is this a long winded poorly formed philosophical way to convey "Humans are habitually erroneous lazy pattern finders". 
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zenux
Posts: 1821
Location: lɘɒɿƨI
|
| Posted: Tue, 20th May 2025 22:57 Post subject: |
|
|
Ye last sentence didn't make sense to me either. The link this interpretation passage refers to doesn't have that conclusion about turkey's lack of info. Whoever edited this wiki article did a poor job of conveying the original Harvard Business article, at least in this last sentence.
The idea was probably, if you replace a dumb object with a smarter one like human, then lack of info could be the most probable cause of the bias.
https://hbr.org/2014/06/instinct-can-beat-analytical-thinking
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 20th May 2025 23:10 Post subject: |
|
|
OH yea I can agree with that.
I don't know how many times as my kids grew up (can't think of any specific situations) they would assume something by a pattern/expectation/normalcy of something and it came up. And I ask them "why". Why do the think the pattern will continue.
Not that it wouldn't or didn't have a good reason to. just to get them to think and ponder why they are right it will, or why they think it will despite no evidence it might.
"Why [x]?..." holds a contradictory place in my kids psyche of endearment tied to me and making them 'learn by teaching themselves', and frustration at times for making them think it though...lol.
I tried to instill a measure of: Confirm things before trusting in them. What you see as a pattern standing beside it, might look TOTALLY different from a top down view.
But yea, overall people are very very lazy at pattern finding. I (personally) think its the path of least resistance to form a belief, mixed with the instinctual nature of is wanting to explain things in patterns we can grasp: If I can satisfy myself on why this is happening, Why would i look further in to confirm it? I already am self satisfied until forced to re inspect it. (Not saying I am above it. Its a reason not an excuse..that even I can fall into  . Despite not liking that its true, I am human after all..lol)
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14202
|
| Posted: Wed, 21st May 2025 10:19 Post subject: |
|
|
Just read Russell directly.
CHAPTER VI. ON INDUCTION
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5827/pg5827-images.html
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13491
|
| Posted: Wed, 21st May 2025 12:12 Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly this. Read primary material and don't waste time with poor interpretations.
Nigga Hail Hortler（。々°）
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 21st May 2025 14:46 Post subject: |
|
|
In the end to me, its ALL us pattern finding, then pondering on our own pattern finding.
Anything we experience is us pattern finding reductions of our experiences into categories that we define and sort subjectively and it's own is not dependant on that.
A table is a table, because we call that group of sensory inputs that match that pattern a table, shorten the legs enough its a platform. Its brown, because we collectively pattern found and mutually agreed that sense from our eye is brown, the differences in its coloring due to light bouncing off it, we collectively agreed to pattern find as Shiny, Dull, Rough".
Like his "A man" and "A man in an iron mask" is just 'taking a pattern we know, and saying it has another thing we have categorized as a pattern that can also self exist combined with it". If men in iron makes was natural, we wouldn't seperate the two, and have a pattern for it as a 'single' thing...even if it was atom for atom identical to the 'man AND a mask"
We remove his arm, we call him "An armless man" because we have no specific pattern word for a person missing his left arm at teh shoulder so we go "This pattern, but missing this other pattern word that conveys our agree criteria for an arm label".
Does any of it exist or not? Doesn't matter. As "to exist" is another pattern we made up as a collective of pattern sorting of a pattern of "yes it can be experienced" or "No it cannot be". If we wasn't here in the universe "This existing" would not be a defined binary pattern of 'yes or no'.
As (as far as we can tell) QM regardless of us carbon blobs with legs, dictacts nothing is 100% certain. EVERYTHING is just ranges of probability collapsing into a range of 0.00~ to 99.999~% chance of perpetuating into an event.
Anything we have to say about it is just our pattern finding explanation we decide, we are subjectively satisfied with, as descriptors to our pattern seeking brain to lump them into 'feels good man' boxes.
---
Why i have a hard time getting into that side of philosophy too deep.
Its us making things up based on our experiences, then questioning the patterns and categories we made, on IF they exist or what they 'mean' outside of us. I say "What do they mean?" Outside of our head? Nothing...we made all these rules up. THe universe does not care or depend on what your infinitely small clump of fatty carbon slapped on them as labels, or depend on existing merely on if that wrinkled carbon clump inside a hollow shell pondered a thing"
Like the does things exist when we close our eyes I always found VERY egohumanistic. Things surely would not depend on if a tiny tiny clump of carbon, slides smaller flaps of its carbon over round balls of carbon it has.
Flip it around and while cannot be 'proven (cannot prove a negative)' is apparently absurd: It cannot be proven that when I blink, a unicorn with 1000 naked women on its back doesn't fly past every time.
Does things exist when we DON'T look? The rabbit hole of 'philosophy relishes in that negatives cannot be proven' is apparent then.
It's as silly as using an intagbile object to determine that: Does A unicorn fly past me everytime asteroid RD-543 is blocked from seeing my vicinity? The asteroid made of matter is just as valid an interactor of events, as my clump of matter that makes me.
It's Putting waaay to much emphasis on our importance of the names we gave things to start with as some sort of metric on its validity, not on it's own. But merely on if it 'is' based on arbitrarily traits we pattern found it had. It is (or isn't) regardless if our egotistical pattern finding of it was right or not.
Why quantum mechanics breaks our brain, we have no patterns our fatty carbon lumps in our head can categorize it into patterns and terms for it, and doesn't fit into any of the patterns we already have of "does X really exist". Because we made them up and they are limited, subjective; and descriptors, not definers, and break our centric reversed logic on 'if or isn't' is binary and possibly reliant on us 'to be'.
Even math, while considered universal truths so to speak. Is just patterns and relations of objective (for lack of a better word, either way WE defined that word to us) things we broke down into patterns that can be used that was matched to be based on the 10 extensions of our hands to make a 'pattern' we can work with. Math doesn't exist in the universe. Its a made up metric of arbitrary units of 'things' we defined and made up, that explain thing we see, observe, and track in a pattern we made up so we can understand it based on a pattern of symbols, we made to label them with. It doesn't need our labels to exist.
Sometimes philosophy (to me) seems to confuse and switch "We made up rules and patterns to understand the universe" with "The universe may depend on our patterns and rules we defined, to exist".
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zenux
Posts: 1821
Location: lɘɒɿƨI
|
| Posted: Wed, 21st May 2025 16:23 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see any better alternative for us human beings for studying the world than scientific method.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 21st May 2025 16:47 Post subject: |
|
|
No I agere, not disputing that.
Saying that when we flip the script to start assuming our metrics for describing the universe, to it now defines the universe. Gets too far into the weeds of egocentrism for my tastes.
It cannot be proven there isn't 10 women fellating me right now. That me or you cannot see, and I am one merely lacking the right sensory input of our limited senses (touch is subjective to 'but is it?' it seems) to feel the sensation of it.
A crude, silly, and probably too vulgar example. But my take on it "If I can take your postuli, and in one step make it seem silly. Then the only thing making it seems reasonable is your purposeful framing it in a limited non-silly context"
(Sort of like: God spoke to me and told me to do this. Vs: God spoke to me through my toaster, and told me to do this.
If the simple addition of a toaster makes it seem absurd, it's not the toaster...)
Some parts of philosophy I enjoy. This side of it seems to love rolling around in the mud of "You cannot prove that it can be proven". And swerves off into field that borders on the edge of 'Say you are claiming a soul exists and/or humans are magically special to the universe, without saying it'.
Soul isn't quite the right word. But some definition of consciousness that is more than just the makeup of it parts. That merely closing our meat flaps over our light senses can change reality...that's a little too 'woo woo' for me, no matter how many big words they use to convey the experience of flapping your eyelids to say 'you cannot prove reality doesn't either change, or ceases to exist when I close my fleshy eye lips'.
Counter argument:
The light still technically enters your eye, your eyelids are not 100% opaque. Just your brain doesn't know what to make of the lowered, diffused, scattered lighting it gets to work out what caused that specific stream of photons to hit all your cones and work out what's on the other side of them. So yes..the information of what happens when you close your eyes is there in your eyeball. Just your brain cannot process it as its been filtered and changed by your eyelid. You not understanding what you see, doesn't mean it might not have happened. All the data is there just we have no 'brain pattern' to decode it when it comes in that way.
To me it the same as saying "I took a photo of my friend, but the lens cap was on. So according to the photo, was they really there at all?"
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zenux
Posts: 1821
Location: lɘɒɿƨI
|
| Posted: Wed, 21st May 2025 17:58 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry, but it's sorta empty sophistry.
However, I am the kinda man who thinks nowadays philosophy is dead/useless/pointless. It was useful once, but not now with the advance of real hard science.
There are things we know.
There are things we don't know.
There are things we don't know that we don't know.
For all intense and purposes the things from the last category might not exist at all, and there's no use for us men even think about them.
The third category should be left for computers with their almost infinite (compared to us) calculation powers, capable of myriads of simulations, future quantum puters and of course to our future overlords, AGIs.
At present we have the luxury of actually counting on the potential help of those thinking machines.
In the past these kind of unknowables would have been left to supernatural/divine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 21st May 2025 18:21 Post subject: |
|
|
I dont think its dead, but mostly left for use in the nature of mankind.
The areas like love, feelings, social stances and ideologies. The areas that are not objective and cannot be quantified as explicitly explainable. Only implicitly defined.
('better' is used below in an example of how the word doesn't fit)
Is communism better than socialism? Than Capitalism?
Is stoicism better than libertinism? than nihilism?
We can't objectively answer that with science or any amount of knowledge (I Guess we could clean room forumate which would be 'best case' for all given regulated parameters of usage, and rigor of all people abide by them. But that's not how messy humans work)
And what does each mean and say about a person/mankind/group of people (whatever) that holds that their choice is the best one?
That philosophy has uses still, but they are relegated to understanding why we act how we act, or why we think a way we do that goes parallels but separated to psychology. Sort of: psychology explicitly explains why we act the way we do. Philosophy implicitly debates the self validity of how we act compared to others ways of acting.
When it has to do with physical objective world, to me, is 'Holism, just with a monocle sitting next to a fireplace'. Type of vibe.
That "The human experience, is just what you make it...man. Things can, or cannot be it all depends on your perspective of your chakras' energy manifests itself into the reality you see around you".
Kinda off the mark and facetious with the chakra thing, but I think you might get what I mean. Its "manifestive spiritualism, with more steps" to seem more deep and chin scratching, than it really is.
It comes off as..jordan peterson-ish:
"What does it mean 'to see', or to 'experience' and in the empirical hierarchy of senses it would quite vain for me to think, my sole perception, as privative as it is, could lead to true perception of the whole. I am but one man of many in a long lineage of thinking men, ergo man does not see what he thinks, he thinks what he sees. And that's humankind's achilles heel so to speak.."
Lots of non naildown-able terms hedging on the idea that the concept they cannot be nailed down is the 'deep' part:
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zenux
Posts: 1821
Location: lɘɒɿƨI
|
| Posted: Wed, 21st May 2025 19:27 Post subject: |
|
|
I think the philosophy follows the God route.
Used to be powerful explaining everything, but as science gained momentum, branched out and chipped out stuff from omnilateral concepts and approaches, philosophy like God has been relegated more and more to gaps. Provided some of the gaps will exist for a long time, but how actual and relevant they would be? Everything else has been, is being ,will be replaced by some specialized field of science.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14202
|
| Posted: Wed, 21st May 2025 20:45 Post subject: |
|
|
You may think that but it doesn’t make it true. What you mean is metaphysics.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 21st May 2025 20:56 Post subject: |
|
|
I'd side with @zenux
Metaphysics is just philosophy wearing a lab coat it found
In my head it's the progression over time parallels the same path of growth as: "God did it all at once" to "We have adapted to new knowns and God used long term rules guiding evolution by active choices by him."
Just without the pesky dogmatic SuperDad theme throughout it.
I think some fields of philosophy annoys me because it seems to get more and more content the more unanswerable, and more questions it can spout of infinite 'wait but if". Which is the opposite of satisfying to me. Working towards more of a non-answer is the least desirable outcome of thinking longer, not the more desirable. As they all end up being volumes of books that end up at "What....is? IF there is, what is...is?".
While enjoying the tidy chin scratch of "Yes...what..is?" they all seem to enjoy spending time making more questions out of their questions, than narrowing down to an answer. The question creation is the satisfying part, the more left ambiguously unanswered the better it is.
Like I tried to read some, I really did. But Most, I go, for example:
Ok Ok...5 chapters of expositional ponderings wandering thru a lot of introspection of the substance of "What does it mean to be/say/have/experience X? And IF X, then why Y? and if so what is the true essence of abstract Y..being Y?" to finalize with something as simple as: People see the world from a singular self formed subjective perspective.
Glad you spent 70 pages explaining the meaning of 'self' and 'collective vs personal perspective' to say that. Is this a College essay? Are you trying to meet the word limit?
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14202
|
| Posted: Wed, 21st May 2025 22:47 Post subject: |
|
|
Its ok not to like it.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 21st May 2025 22:58 Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed, didn't say it wasn't OK to like it either 
I'm sure I got stupid shit I am interested in (a lot actually) that people think are pedantic time wasters.
Just my humble meaningless self take on it.
Even the link of Russell above. About 1/3 of the way in I start getting "This feels like my college roommate that was going for a doctorate, when he got realllllly high and started rambling like:
Stuff, you know. What is stuff? Is absence of stuff, still a thing a "collection of nothingless" implies there is a countable amount to collect. And is it collected? If no mover with intent was a collector? Is a collection of rock in a river, a collection if they just ended up there and was not collected?...Was they collected before I found them? Or is it a collection now that I identified them as one?"
Type of stuff. And I go "What are you on about? Your just playing with the semantics of words we use to label things, it doesn't give them new intrinsic property because we did. Or it change anything about its existence if we debate the meaning of the word we put on it. It is, with or without us classifying it with words WE need to grasp it."
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zenux
Posts: 1821
Location: lɘɒɿƨI
|
| Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2025 18:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | | You may think that but it doesn’t make it true. |
I thought the philosophy decline was common knowledge.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13491
|
| Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2025 18:26 Post subject: |
|
|
@SumZero
You are actually engaging in the thing which you claim is a waste of time, since reasoning about the relevance of philosophy is itself a philosophical task.
Nigga Hail Hortler（。々°）
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13491
|
| Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2025 20:43 Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough, but you seem to enjoy it so it is not time wasted. Not everything has to be about truth with a capital T and that includes philosophy. I will often read some metaphysics because it is quirky, strange, interesting, etc... or often I just like the style of the author. There is a pleasure in reading and thinking through difficult texts, and the concepts found within them. I think a philosophical attitude (whatever that means exactly) is a mode of being in the world that is rooted in wonder. The fact that questions are not simply resolved but instead proliferate and multiply is why the philosophically inclined continue to do philosophy. They enjoy the wonder and that the wonder itself cannot be extinguished serves only to increase the wonder. But this is a fact (that questions are rarely resolved) that irritates others into thinking about philosophy as a pointless activity. I am not an apologist for philosophy btw because I have a love/hate relationship to it.
Also there is no science without philosophy because data acquired via empirical observation cannot interpret itself nor is it always self-evident. Someone has to do the philosophical task of deciding what all this data means. Science is a philosophical attitude towards the world that falls under the umbrella of naturalistic enquiry.
Nigga Hail Hortler（。々°）
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14202
|
| Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2025 21:15 Post subject: |
|
|
| zenux wrote: | | couleur wrote: | | You may think that but it doesn’t make it true. |
I thought the philosophy decline was common knowledge. |
And what makes you think that?
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zenux
Posts: 1821
Location: lɘɒɿƨI
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2025 22:05 Post subject: |
|
|
@Nalo
I think thats the difference maybe? I'm curious about a lot of things, but dunno if i'd use the word wonder..doesn't seem to fit my approach to it. Its less wonder and more "curiosity of I don't have answer, so I will find one to cure my curiosity. and move on until more can be discovered"
And if it's something that I cannot. Get back to me and let me know when it can so I know.
Or it just cannot ever be answered? No reason to put energy into something I cannot finalize.
Sort of like my mantra for stuff in life, but tweaked:
Something wrong? Can you fix it? No? Then why worry you can't do anything.
Something wrong? Can you fix it? Yes? Then why worry you can fix it.
Just change it to: Something unknown? Can you find it out? (etc).
Why I think (and said before I think here) philosophy is bubblegum for the brain. Which is fine, and enjoyable to some. I'm more the type "Why am I chewing if I get no resulting substance to swallow?" type.
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14202
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2025 23:53 Post subject: |
|
|
Its not, I read on a website that it wasn't.
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zenux
Posts: 1821
Location: lɘɒɿƨI
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14202
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2025 10:52 Post subject: |
|
|
Yup, it is pointless. But I think there are actually arguments to be made for one side and for the other. And then we often find that there is not one clear cut answer to most of these issues. Philosophy has many fields, some of which are less important now and some of which have evolved and some of which are more prominent.
My personal experience, based on what I read and where and what students I know go study, academics I know, lectures I see etc. tells me philosophy is far from going the same route as the idea of god. Its subjects being far more wide. And even that, going purely by the numbers, the idea of god is "sadly" regaining terrain (Both christian and muslim) and the trust in science is losing ground as extremist ideologies are getting stronger. Social media seems to favor ideologies instead of science apparently, since they have easy answers, whereas they often are not.
Personally I love science and I don't see philosophy and science being in opposition at all.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2025 13:51 Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't say they conflict either.
One is "I want to know all the things I can know"
The other is "I want to know all the things I can't know"
Like the link you gave @couleur By one of its own statements I see no reason for the entire rest of his text to exist:
In one sense it must be admitted that we can never prove the existence of things other than ourselves and our experiences.
Lets take this as a given. The entire rest of the text is now moot.
As it is someone trying to convey to me, the state of things. Which cannot use as he cannot prove the existence of anything to me, only I can prove the existence to me, of myself and my experiences.
Anything he has to say is unprovable to actually exist. Much less be acceptable as me taking his experience to add to mine, I can only validate my own. (I cannot even proof what he wrote exists or is true. Only I experienced it).
And I hope you didn't take what I said earlier as meaning it was say it took the same route as God. I meant as more time goes on and on since the ancient days. The more we explain, the more it gets relegated to the (as of now) smaller area of unprovable. Forever stuck in the "I want to know all the things I can't know" cage.
I admire a LOT of people into philosophy. A few of them are here. And all of them quite intelligent and critical thinking people.
Just not my way of exercising the brain. I see it as working out:
Some people like going to the gym and doing workouts to stay/get into shape.
I can't do that. I have to 'make' something for the effort. Why I got my garage shop, and build things. the gym to me is "Why? You get no tangible item for your energy spent, you are picking up heavy things to put them back where they was. Why not get in shape AND make something?"
Thats how I see the "How do we keep our mind sharp" difference here. Neither of ours is better, just different.
Democracy Dies in Dumbness.
-Officially sanctioned Libcuck of NFOHump, proudly appointed by the SIS (Stromwolf Identity Society). Not only do I enjoy Libbing around all libtard like, I enjoy a good cuckolding too.
Since I like my sex like I like my politics: Liberal and gay-friendly. With lot of Trans pedos involved, and me and my wife don't involve each other much when we engage in it with strangers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
