Well, I don't think people are really philosophizing. They just display their feelings and view they have on life and it's meaning, as far as that can go for being philosiphical. It's another form of debating. Humans are famous for naming everything. Put a mark/label on a "thing" and another theory is born. No laws whatsoever. Discussing what you think/feel about a subject. When a person is true about his feelings and thoughts on a subject, there can grow a good discussion/debate out of it. It is LAW though to stay on the subject which is posted. So, go figure... (well I bet there will be responses on this, let them come people. philosophize...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
I guess that depends on your view of the universe. I'm going to assume that when you say law you mean things like scientific laws, not some other sort. If you think that the universe is ordered, then yes, the fundamental nature of existance will have simple laws and complex theories through which existance acts. If you think that nothing exists, then you're only going to have one law on your philosophic books, namely "Nothing Is". Of course, you're not going to name them in that manner exactly. The manner through which Ideas interact with reality probably won't wind up being called "Riomacleod's Third Law of Superimposition" or somesuch, but whether they're called that or not, the basic premises and researched knowledges are laws and theories.
No- philosophy cannot be objective, because it is a human-created outlook on life. Because of this, we cannot make any laws to classify it, because life outlooks can change from person to person based on the subtlest of differences in backround and current situation. unless laws can be subjective, but I don't see that happening any time soon....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why not have laws? Laws help you stay consistent and prevent you from confusing things. Laws make it possible to predict future events instead of just observing the present. Laws don't have to be right in order to be useful. You can always throw them out when you decide you'd like to look at things in another way. Making something a law means treating it as true, and that's often useful regardless of actual truth value. To know something you have to know it in terms of something else, so you need to create foundations for yourself... making an assumption and treating it as a law is a neccesary starting point to get anywhere. So, you can have laws of philosophy and should have laws of philosophy... it's just that the laws one group chooses are no more "right" than those another group chooses.
so... could we say that laws are mearly boundery pegs to stop the weaker minds from going crazzy? in a form of philosophy .. that is... ??? or must we decide on the existance of something in a tangable theory to move from one to the other to be able to then fluidly (front lobal[conformist psychology]) manipulate it??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, I don't think you can say that at all. I would say that laws are the basic tenets which a philosophy is based upon. You then argue for or against those laws to prove them to yourself. why can't philosophy be objective? Shouldn't it mirror the fundamental nature of the universe? Isn't that why we're doing this in the first place? Or maybe the universe is somehow subjective? This is exactly the kind of statement that keeps most people from taking philosophy seriously.
Perspective changes from person to person, but the universe around us does not change based on our perspective. And we are products of the universe. I suggest humans can see things objectively, if they school themselves to do so.
yo yall Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! so... wait for it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! could one then maybe jump (as some might think) to a point of using our transposing law of philosophy to .. maybe.. other sciences... ? .. ??? without compromising the very nature of the universe and thus living the reality soo many are to fhightened to help create??? assuming ... of coarse... philosophy is our spiritual/higher self/front-lobal cerebral junction box/minds' premis, ... as the value and validity of all sciences? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ? thoughts anyone?
I don't think that by creating laws of philosophy we could somehow integrate all sciences together- although by definition: "The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs." It certainly applies to other areas. But in terms of strengthening philosophy from the inside as a result of unifying it from the inside, and then trying to use that to unify how we view other things, I don't think it works. Philosophy is based on logic, not empirical observation. Laws of Logic?
heyya Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Congrats ... But in terms of strengthening philosophy from the inside as a result of unifying it from the inside ------------ unifying it from the inside ??? (typo) ? or my feeble brain? my fishing trip is an attemp to gain as many opinions as possible with out stating a position which may slant views of others! my question/suggestion is (i will try and be more precies) is it not our mear perception/ability to interpret that gives "law" to our sciences ??? *ALL HAIL YEE TO "ALBERT" AND "NICK" may we all be ...one day not soo damaged that we can start to truely apreciate how unique those 2 beings were. maybe they dared to tell the truth? maybe they discovered on a journey? maybe they tried to SAVE US FROM OUR SELFS?!?!?!?!? in the statement of saying "i am a scientist" it should be a a vow of understanding that "i will never stop questioning all that we know and all that we claim to be" a little big for most i accept... but the cows go moo and i go boo and the chocolate is not quite the same Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! philosophy... SCIENCE or ART ... ??? groove on all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
