I have just finished a new website, titled My Philosophy.... On the site I show my view on life and the world as I see it. Perhaps people here will find it interesting to read.. I'll no paste the entire text here because that would be too much, you can find the site at http://anaproy.homeip.net/myphilosophy Any constructive criticism is highly welcomed of course Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Very cool It looks like you ripped all that straight out of my head! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However, I don't agree with this: To me, life has very logical meaning. Apart from the obvious bological purpose, the meaning is based on our reason and emotions, both of which have a logical place in our lives. To me, logic does not dictate that death is the absolute end of existence. Instead, logic tends to tell me that we don't know and can not make such a decision yet.
Indeed.. we have to assign meaning to it ourselves.. But there is nothing like a "higher meaning" in my opinion.... That meaning we assign to life can indeed be logical.. But lgocially, life does not have an absolute common goal.. (unlike some people claim) And about death, we indeed are not sure of it being the absolute end. But logically seen it would be very likely, because the brain stops functioning, and we've never determined that the power of our mind comes from outside our brain or body...Scientifically there are hardly any facts pointing to an afterlife.. So if life ceases, then logically seen it would most likely be the end.. Of course, knowing for sure is never possible..
Hmmm... Logic is a tool. A "calculator", if you like. What you put into it dictates your conclusions. But by itself, logic does not dictate anything. It's all about how you use it, and what you cram into it!
I think it is wonderful that you have obviously devoted much time and energy into searching for the truth. You have a very honest and open philosophy and the website is put together well (I like that picture of what looks like a bullet moving through water.) Also, your philosophical views are very similar to mine. Do you feel the need to be a part of an organized group that shares these views? Something like pantheism? I dunno, its something I am pondering... -fc
Logically logic can not be applied in such a statement. Simply because classical logic is one dimensional, while life is 4 dimensional, with time being a major part of iteration. I have never seen time is included in the classical logic to arrive at a result set. It can be though. So when you do the iteration, the absolute goal becomes self evident even with initial condition as the big bang. Life has a meaning to the universe, just as the river has meaning to plants and animals who depend on it. Just as Earth depends on the warrmth of the Sun. The Universe is a complex organism born out of a simple initial condition. We are part of it. If we did not have meaning, or purpose, we would not be here and the velocity of dice would have been different. Understanding how you are a part of the greater whole and where you and your progeny is going - becomes the meaning of life according to the new science (Stephen Wolfram) that one can test in ones computer. BTW: the website looks good (eye-candy). In the view of new knowledge about Life, Universe and Everything - you may wish to update it. No point in re-inventing the wheel....
I do think logic can be applied here. But of course it is logic, as was already said, as a calculator, based on what we know... the outcome of it will never be absolute because it's always dependent on what goes in... I do think that there is no common, or "higher" goal of life.. Goals are human things, things we have to make for ourselves, not something that's predetermined...that's what my logic tells me.. About the four dimension, logic plays in a whole lot more dimensions because there are a huge amount of variables, it's just what you define as a dimension.. . In a relative sense, of course... but I was talking about an absolute sense, I don't think there's an absolute goal, only tons of relative goals...
So...in the end...it is the belief (I think...I don't think) that seem to guide you to your conclusions. Logic has nothing to do with it...right? So...be it...if you are happy...great...you asked for our opinion you got it...whether you want it is a whole different issue....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
proycon, I like your Philosophy... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However, logic set up limitations... Logic is limited itself. The universe doesn't seem to be limited. The possibilities don't seem to be limited. Logic cannot exist in nature's essence, because reality would be very limited. Besides that, analizing further the psychological inferences of our personalities, which are formed in our childhood, we can easily constate that logic slowly removes our freedom of being, by morals already set up in our world, and our inner peace, which is sustained by the lack of knowledge and consequential lack of anxiety.
Nelson, you are using cirrcular reasoning. Logic set up limitations, why is logic limited? Because of itself. it's just like saying... religion creates a more moral world who creates a moral world? religion does. Do you see the flaw in your "logical" reasoning? Also "The universe doesn't seem to be limited. The possibilities don't seem to be limited." Off of assumptions and cirrular reasoning, you then conclude that "logic cannot exist in nature's essence, because reality would be very limited." What is reality to you? I hope it is not imagination. Logic is not limited, knowledge is not limited. It's the human individual that is limited.
~The_Chosen~, No. I said that logic set up limitations and logic itself is limited. In the first time I'm referring to the limitations of other things and in the second, I'm referring to logic itself. The conclusion is right, but the logic is not circular and there are no assumptions. That's just the most probable... Logic needs order and categoralization. Look around you. Is it really ordered? Logic just creates a kind of structure for the universe to work, but it's not the essence of the universe. That would be like comparing our squeleton with our heart, brain and lungs...:bugeye:
first, as a new member, i have to say im very impressed with the depth of your discussions here. the chosen, im not quite sure that "circular reasoning" is the term to use. it seems to me that "Logic set up limitations, why is logic limited? Because of itself." is mere question and answer. I think truthseeker's logical flaw is more accurately described as assuming the quality of the result to be inherent to the initial condition. Just because logic "limits" out certain possibilities in the world doesn't mean it's ultimately "limited" as a way of finding truth. Plus, that seems to be a blatant, anti-logic assumption to say nature cant follow logic otherwise it would be limited. How can you be sure about that? and How can you assume nature doesn't follow rules . . . this seems to go back to the chaos/order in the universe debate. and last i checked, some people were suggesting chaos, as true randomness, can't even exist. . . theres always structure . . . and mr kmguru, although i dont doubt theres something to be said here. . . (are you a prof?) "Life has a meaning to the universe, just as the river has meaning to plants and animals who depend on it. Just as Earth depends on the warrmth of the Sun. The Universe is a complex organism born out of a simple initial condition. We are part of it. If we did not have meaning, or purpose, we would not be here and the velocity of dice would have been different. " im really confused by this. where do you, and stephen wolfram, rightly conclude that the universe is somehow contingent on life? I dont see how the river/sun analogies hold up--animals DO die and rot away and rivers continue to flow and someday a large asteroid may shoot our little planet out of the stars and the sun WILL continue to burn. animals and we are contingent on the river and the sun, respectively, but not vice versa. but i dont see how the "universe can be born out of a simple condition," (life you mean?) because i'm pretty sure the world keeps spinning when i close my eyes for the last time. and finally, ASSUMING we do have meaning or purpose, the idea that we would not be here seems to assume an unestablished notion of "fate." where did this preconceived plan for existence come into the equation? i know this is a long reply, but finally i have to say that "Besides that, analizing further the psychological inferences of our personalities, which are formed in our childhood, we can easily constate that logic slowly removes our freedom of being, by morals already set up in our world, and our inner peace, which is sustained by the lack of knowledge and consequential lack of anxiety." is right on the money, truthseeker. you say it so academically and detached, though, (with a tinge of disdain for the naive,) when the conclusion itself is so horrifying. oh well, i just have this catcher-in-the-rye syndrome. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ubermich, Welcome Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yep... that's right... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thoughts have their limitations. They are useful, until the point where you want to discuss something more deeper, like a common Truth for all things in the universe (perhaps the only common Truth that really exist is that everything exist...:bugeye: ). That's because logic was create exactly to limit things. For example, words. Each word carry a certain meaning. People will understand them as a common meaning, a common Truth. But the words, themselves are the limitations of their meanings. Ok... an analogy to explain it (it'a easier that way...). Imagine an infinite ocean. Then imagine hundreds of bottles with different shapes and sizes. You put some of the water of the ocean in each bottle. Well, to understand the "meaning" of the bottle, we look to its shape and size. But when we grow up and get used with the language, we start to pay attention more to the bottles than to the water inside. We forgot that what we want is the water, not the bottle itself. Why is limited? Well, first of all, we have bottles (words) to limit the water (Truth). That works through reason and logic. Next, a word in French will meaning a different thing that the same word in Portuguese. For example, "coup" in French (pronounced "cu") will mean "neck. The same word in Portuguese, with the exact same pronounciation will mean "asshole" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. So you see that the same word (bottle) can carry a "different" meaning (water) for different people. The thing that twist the mind here, is that it seems that there are many Truths, but there are not. We perceive different Truths because we try to limit it by logic and reason. I hope you got it. It's hard to get it trought the mind... It's like to pass a fine line through a needle... Nature "follow" rules. If you can compare nature to a body, the rules are the spine cord of nature. However, people usually mistake the "spine cord" by the entire body! People think that the bones are more important then the brain, the heart, the lungs... Besides that, true randomness exist but it's ordered by balance and harmony (the two most essential laws of the universe). What do you mean by that...?
Truthseeker, what is truth to you?? I seek the truth also, always. I don't understand how you perceive the universe to be. Elaborate?
*clap clap clap (for truthseeker, and not sarcastically Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) really impressive, your insight on how language sets limitations on how we think. (are you a big fan of structural linguistics by any chance? because what youre saying was big starting in the 30s with levi-strauss and saussure) i do see what youre saying about how words take on connotations, and we focus on the words, not the connotations. good analogy with the bottles and whatnot btw. but im not quite sure linguistics has murdered logic . . . . i think what you said assumes that thoughts and hence logic are based on words, that they work through language. I'm not necessarilly sure thats true. it is for me, maybe for me, but you cant say that thats a universal absolute, and so im not sure that your absolute negation of the absolute is so absolute! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! FOr example, (i think this harkens back to a little debate between kant and hume btw) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! its not the words that create the thoughts/logic, but vice versa. you may perceive that the words encapsulate and bastardize their thought antecedents, but there is still thought/logic that must formulate the initial words in your mind. language is contingent on logic, not vice versa. there must be some basic, perhaps subconcious thought/logic that identifies the initial syllogism/argument in language furthermore, since im not sure you can use your experiences to prove a point on this one (like i mentioned earlier, learning is subjective), i dont think you can conclude that this initial logical argument has been coopted by language. And if that's true, then logic, as a metaphysical learning style or whatever, can potentially be infallible and limitless. btw, (i think im contradicting one of my own posts on this, but . . . ) give philosophy a chance. its been trying to tackle this question for centuries, using rational epistemology to establish the one, primary, irrefutable truth and then work from there. i cant say it's been totally successful, but i think there is some room for logic's capabilities. Look at Descartes "i think therefore i am;" its a logical conclusion that avoided that pitfalls of language. we just have to learn how to communicate through telepathy, to trash the little coke bottle system . . . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and as for this: your analysis just sparked a little random thought in me that happened to implicate my entire friggin' worldview, my interpretation of the meaning of life, and my ultimate fate as an individual in a flawed world. (not kidding you did!) obviously your life philosophy cant be explained in one reply, but suffice it to the catcher-in-the-rye analogy. to me, logic is dangerous, pretty filthy, like intuition of ones self and others is associated with corruption. all thats stuffs a part of growing up, losing your sense of insouciant completeness and control, like you said. and thats what the catcher-in-the-rye is about too, swallowing the real world. one last thing: how do you post an avatar?
I see Nelson. But that is just complaining, logic is getting us somewhere. First define what exact truth you are refering to. I surely hope it is just not some concept. If languages limit us, what do you propose we use instead of language and logic?? hmmm...
First: Thanks...We aim to please...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Prof? Those one dimensional humans? Hell...no... No, the life is contigent on the Universe same way the Plant is contigent on the seed or root... but i dont see how the "universe can be born out of a simple condition," You need to read the book, it took him 1200 pages to explain that, and you expect me to explain it in a single post that you can understand? I am not that smart....
ubermich, I see that you understood what I said... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's not very common in those forums... only a few people here can understand me... I don't know structural inguistics and neither this people... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! My point is that words are not necessarily essential for thoughts to come to being. It is possible to think things without using words (really... I already did that, but it's hard...). Like... there is a reign of thoughts, but there's also the creation of them. When you are a baby, you can't think with words. But you still exist (what means that "I think therefore I am" is completly wrong...). There must be something that comes before the words being formed in our minds. It would be like Plato's "world of ideas". A "world" where the thoughts are still not determined, a world of meanings. That's what I think religion talks about. It seems that words are from the world, and meanings are "spirit"... Or some supraconscious which is the Truth, a common view. Well... what I'm basically talking here is about the implications of our differences of perspective which limits our knowledge of the universe. That works through the conscient, our minds, through logic and reason. Through logic and reason, we get information from the world and analize it, judging it. But our judgement limits or view of the world into our perspective. This also works through the same analogy. Each person will see the world in a way, because each person will judge the world with the information already armazened in their minds. So each person will know a different world, a different reality. The only way to transcend this reality diminished by our conscient and rationalism is by stoping judging the world. However, this implies that we must transcend the limitations of our minds and our rational thoughts, as they are based in the judgement of our world, which creates our personal perception. Once I said to Tyler (a poster here...) that if I could discuss Descartes with my dog, I would believe that my dog exists... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Or transcend logic and reason... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's good Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!It's somewhat rare to see someone insightful around here...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't know either... Try this: "[tip] How to use avatars" I couldn't... ~The_Chosen~, Logic get us somewhere, but we are near the limits of logic. When we discuss the most essential Truth of the universe, logic set up limitations. Language set up limitations naturally. That's how it works... What I propose? I don't know. It seems for me that language is necessary for communication but not for aphrehension... Language and logic facilitates the communication but they amke utterly impossible to discover the Truth. And since the Truth is discovered by an individual, it can't be communicated, otherwise it loses Its true nature... The Truth I'm referring too? Something that is common and essential to all things. The "atom". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
to truthseeker, wow, wow, wow, slow down buddy, i think what you're saying contradicts itself: now im not sure on what page you stand, nelson. you say that thoughts are limited by words because we must communicate our thoughts through words, but then you say thoughts DO dictate words? which controls which here? your reply with the bottle system pin-pointed words as the ultimate limitation of thought, and now you're saying thoughts exist w/o words? if you're saying (which i think you are, because this is the only way is see for thoughts and words to be reconciled in your viewpoint), that words are limited by perception/connotation, and then are limited on top of that by our thoughts (or logic if you mean that), i still think you're wrong to assume logic, as a concept, to be flawed. that brings up my point that to me, thoughts and logic are not the same. logic is disciplined reason. thoughts are, thoughts. more nebulous and amoeba-like. which means you cant throw descartes out the window just yet. first of all, how do you know "logic" doesnt have a platonic form, a perfect image. as far as the baby, locke might argue that YOU didn't exist as a child. your body might be the same, but your human, your personal conscience, wasn't. moreover, descartes conclusion is still intact. you say that thoughts can exist without words, and descartes would only agree with you: words are manipulations or tricks. for descartes, the essence of man was in his mind: the existence of your thoughts proves you exist. i dont see where you can jump to the conclusion that "i think therefore i am" is wrong. you said it yourself: thoughts dont rely on words, and im sure descartes could have concluded that in his thoughts before language came into the picture. that clears up what youre saying. thanks. thats a pretty clean argument, but you're still assuming the existence of a common absolute Truth. i mean, it makes sense, knowing that you believe in god and platonic forms. but the bottom line is that you cant conclude logic is limited if you cant prove that a limitation on it exists. i think orthogonal said it best when he wrote (something along these lines): the subject/object are intertwined and inseparable. an object w/o a subject is nothing. a subject w/o object is in paralysis. we are all subjects, and your common Truth (as one object), cant exist, because as subjects we limit it out. i mean, who judges your absolute Truth to be absolute? you see, your argument is predicated on the existence of god which you cant prove. wrong, wrong, wrong my friend. descartes conclusion proves the exact opposite of the existence of your dog. if we went by your definition of cogito ergo sum, then that means everything we perceive exists (your dog, which you think exists, is just one of them.) and if thats why you think "i think therefore i am" is flawed, thats a misinterpretation. youre assuming descartes concludes what you perceive in thought to be true, when all descartes is saying is that the thought itself is true. his whole point is proving that we can be sure of nothing except the fact that we think, and to think is to exist. you're not thinking for your dog when you think about him. and if youre saying that a dog thinking "i think therefore i am" would make you think he exists. you're still wrong. because to perceive your dog thinking that relies on your sense, which descartes agreed were foible. im sorry if i was offensive at all, nelson, i just get a little riled up or upset in epistemological disagreements. thanks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ubermich, Thoughts influece our actions and our words. You see... we create our beliefs, which control our thoughts, which subsequently control us. At the same time, thoughts are not essential to words eventhought they control us. Thoughts are created throught the mind, not by the mind. There's a big difference here. When thoughts are not limited by words, before the thoughts themselves come into being, they are like the ocean. When you add logic and reason, using words, they now are limited. To stop the confusion, perhaps we mind create a new word. "Pre-thought" would be a good example. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You see... "Pre-thought" = ocean = without logic and reason = Truth "Thought" = bottles = with logic and reason = Lies, beliefs My dog cannot think. If you say my dog can think... well... then we need a new definition for "Homo Sapiens"... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Logic limited. Truth cannot be limited. That's why I said that judgement creates a limited perception. Once you become self-aware and define an object in relation to you, the true nature, the essence of this object is lost by your own perception, your perspective. That's why reason and logic are limited. If you want to discover the "atom", the "atom" itself must be absolute, as it must be inherent of all things. That is cute... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But it takes us nowhere... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well... philosophical discussions are pretty mind-bending...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Mainly when you don't talk about it in your own language...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Btw... take a look tomorrow or Wednesday... I'll be posting a thread in Free Thoughts called "Goodbye Thread". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
