Hello, it's been awhile.


I'm interested in having some discussion on philosophy, specifically on metaphysics and epistemology.

Are our senses valid?
Is there an objective reality?
Are we able to accurately perceive reality?
What is "existence"?
ect.

I just got off a high from reading "An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and I'm about 200 pages away from finishing "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.

By the way if any of you would be kind enough to show me existentialism with out contradiction or using a "stolen concept" I'd really enjoy it.

I wish I could start the discussion in a more aggressive, initiative taking style but I have no slept yet and my brain is bruised. I'll try later.

__________________

man you are in the WRONG place for this conversation

__________________

Why is that? I'll definitely take part in it when i have more time to think out my posts. I was actually a philosophy major for 2 years, so I have an interest in the topic.

__________________

welp ill stop trolling this thread but there are a whole lot of teenagers and non-native english speakers on this forum, not a great place for lofty discussion

including myself, as i have nothing to add to this discussion

__________________

there is a philisophy thread i believe

even though this is very interesting, im not going to engage in this discussion because it would take too much of my time.

check out Kierkegaard and Kant on their views on existensialism though

__________________

Yep. People who can't speak English can't understand abstract concepts.

Oh, and Ayn Rand's retarded. Deductive logic based on surmising as you sit in your armchair and imagine how you might have started forming concepts back when you were a toddler is not rationality, or even 'logical' except in a closed system sort of way. Aristotelian (i.e. primarily deductive) logic is a tool, and not a basis of a philosophy; mostly because deductive logic is a closed system (she and Branden literally say that logic is not arbitrary because it is 'logical.' Thank you). This is why she tried to prove using logic that cigarettes are good for you and the bossa nova is the only reasonable thing to dance. Also, for that matter, most of her epistemological suppositions have been contradicted by science, which is a nasty position for a rationalist to be in. But there you have it.

And no, I will not provide any positive input into this discussion of metaphysics and epistemology when I can take the opportunity to bash one of the most pervasive and dumb pseudo-philosophers in the world. Find yourself a more interesting background and we'll talk.

Incidentally, the 'stolen concept' fallacy is rooted in an inability to understand non-literal speech or thought experiments (and also an idiosyncratic system of definitions that seem to make sense so long as you only have recourse to her definitions). That's not to say that the fallacy doesn't exist, but that it was made up by Rand to deal with things that mostly make sense if you're not mind-numbingly literal. It's not quite as fun as her 'argument from intimidation' fallacy, which she outlines at the beginning of a book that claims that people who don't agree with her are subhuman and which presents as a fallacy the claim that people who don't agree with some philosophical statement are necessarily subhuman, but it's still fun to note that.

obviously thats not what i was saying. i was saying they most likely dont have the vocabulary for this conversation in english

__________________

you would be surprised, dont generalize, first rule of brained people.

__________________

Where are these rules located?

have you ever heard of a thing called unwritten rules?

__________________

This is just as good as moonspeak to me.

__________________

This thread was bound to go downhill fast. And look at it go!

__________________

Well, no matter how likely it may be that I wouldn't have the vocabulary for this conversation, most of my work is based around the empirical cyclus and deductive logic.
I know a fair bit about the subject but more in practical ways, connected to HR-management and such. Qualitative and quantitative research has been my main focus for the last two years. A lot of the topic-related literature is in English, stuff like Mintzberg, Kvale and Meyers & Allen.

Ontology also tends to play a great role in justifying my researches on the methological side of things. (for example my role as a researcher and my view of observations due to my background, etc.)

I'm not much of a philosopher though...

What are you doing in school right now, anyway? You haven't mentioned Berkely in a while, but I assume you're still doing something in the way of higher education.

__________________

exactly!

requiem: no needs to write a fucking book about rules of life, you already are suppose to know them.

__________________

First thing, skepticism pisses me off. "How can we be sure that.....blah blah blah" Fuck that. It reminds me of a child who repeatedly just asks the question "why?" The kid isn't interested in the 'answer'. All that matters to him is being an annoying prick, much like skeptics.

So, there is really no use for questioning "can we trust our senses," because in the long run, that is really the only thing we can trust.

Is 'thought' a sense? If it is, try doubting that and see where it gets ya.

I would classify myself as an empiricist to a certain extent because without our immediate senses we have nothing to build off of.

__________________

Lately I've become intrigued by Philosophy and in need of a book of introduction. Any suggestions? Solipsism is my main interest.

"Subjectivism and Solipsism'' by D.R. Khashaba, it's pretty recent, I think it was written like 5 years ago.

It's not a light read. But it's interesting.

I for one, will avoid this like the plague. Not that I am uneducated, or dont have any grasp on the subject, its just this shit gives me massive panic attacks.

__________________

Ayn Rand is a gink and I'm not going to talk about her. Instead, I'll have a long, rambling crack at the question below because it's a wet Saturday afternoon and I still have a hangover you could use to pry open bank vaults.




If you're an accountant, you probably don't hang out to take your work home with you. And you probably don't want to talk about arbitrage and tax havens in your spare time. Being an academic is different. It's hard to think about your research at all unless you're surrounded by it all the time. So it requires a peculiar kind of mentality - people who'll get the most appalling amount of shit done simply because they want to. God knows there's no fame or fortune in it.

What's interesting to me is the motivation that creates this state. So I've asked many people, most of them vision scientists (they're the bulk of the faculty at my University). The upshot of all this is simply: in my experience, psychologists pursue (quasi) scientific problems which are directly descended from questions like "Can we accurately perceive reality?". This is a question which makes more sense to us pursued at the level of the visual system and conscious states, rather than talking broadly about transcendental idealism or solipsism or whatever.

That's not to say psychologists are failed philosophers, or that philosophers waste their time if they're not well psych-informed. Obviously, the fields inform each other and philosophical language is a necessity especially in my area (mind-brain-body connections - 'neuropsychophysiology'). However, I think it's safe to say that we're firmly convinced that we're asking the right questions. That is, at the appropriate level of analysis for right now. And that if there was a better way, we'd be philosophers.

So, the scientific answers to the below questions...



No.
No.
No.
Who cares?

Wasn't that helpful? I told you we knew things.

__________________