Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Razor on August 29, 2003, 03:27:35 pm
-
In the beggining of this school year, on religion classes we discussed the differences between two things: knowing and believing. Then the teacher started to talk about things like: Is this real? Why do we accept this as reality? ETC.....
I mean, it seems that we have a Morpheus in our school. :doubt:
Any opinions?
-
Opinions on what? The backwardness of your school teachings?
Just to clarify, there is no school system. It's all an elaborate illusion set up in some fat white guy's snowglobe in the middle of Jersey.
-
It's the origin of the "I think, therefore I am" statement. Which means that the fact the thinker exists in some form is the only thing that can be proven. I've come across books about it, and it's certainly an interesting theory. However, it's not really something I bother to think about - who cares if it's not all real, so long as I can have fun in it ^_^
-
If something cannot be proven (or disproven) in any way at the time of when the question is asked it is not reality. But this does not exclude the possibility of it becoming reality.
So, for instance, God at this moment is surreal. But I will not and cannot exclude the possibility that he/she actually exist as neither way is proven. Now, you can believe something exist or just "is". But untill its proven with facts you cannot say its reality. Nor can you say it does not exist.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Opinions on what? The backwardness of your school teachings?
Just to clarify, there is no school system. It's all an elaborate illusion set up in some fat white guy's snowglobe in the middle of Jersey.
Carefull. I think I sense rascism here.
-
Racism? C'mon, Jersey is an affirmitive-action death trap...
-
:wtf: :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Razor
Carefull. I think I sense rascism here.
So the pot says to the kettle.....
-
Was there a point to this thread, or was it just slapped up by Razor in a weak attempt to seem like he actually had a synapse or something? I mean, Christ, I wasn't gonna call you a moron here, but... all you can think is Morpheus?
See, I just can't abide crap like this when it gets posted, 'cos I don't want to be a misanthrope. Honest I don't. It's just every ****in' ten minutes someone who in reality shouldn't have even tried to form a thought more advanced than "I like Nutter Butters" pops up and tries to get attention by taking several millenia of philosophy, the one inarguably good accomplishment we have made while on this Earth and defiling it with their inconceivable vacuousness, to make some statement so imbecilic that it can cauterize out your frontal lobe from 20 yards. That and TV commercials. TV commercials suck, and go a long way towards explaining why so many people exhibit such bovine stupidity. And they're loud, and show a disturbing lack of nudity.
Hmm... That's it. For now.
-
At least Razor said something that can be discussed intelligently, and is an interesting subject, however it was presented.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Was there a point to this thread, or was it just slapped up by Razor in a weak attempt to seem like he actually had a synapse or something? I mean, Christ, I wasn't gonna call you a moron here, but... all you can think is Morpheus?
See, I just can't abide crap like this when it gets posted, 'cos I don't want to be a misanthrope. Honest I don't. It's just every ****in' ten minutes someone who in reality shouldn't have even tried to form a thought more advanced than "I like Nutter Butters" pops up and tries to get attention by taking several millenia of philosophy, the one inarguably good accomplishment we have made while on this Earth and defiling it with their inconceivable vacuousness, to make some statement so imbecilic that it can cauterize out your frontal lobe from 20 yards. That and TV commercials. TV commercials suck, and go a long way towards explaining why so many people exhibit such bovine stupidity. And they're loud, and show a disturbing lack of nudity.
Hmm... That's it. For now.
Careful...
-
Apologies, but philosophy of this sort happens to be my field and my passion, and even if he couldn't summon up the wattage to deal with the question properly (or sense to not bring it up in that case), he could have had the common decency to at least make the effort. Lots of people try and fail to actually think about anything significant in any material way, and I have nothing against them. This **** is just insulting.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Apologies, but philosophy of this sort happens to be my field and my passion, and even if he couldn't summon up the wattage to deal with the question properly (or sense to not bring it up in that case), he could have had the common decency to at least make the effort. Lots of people try and fail to actually think about anything significant in any material way, and I have nothing against them. This **** is just insulting.
You can disagree with him all you want, but the moment you start to explicitly offend him you're scoring negative points with me. So if you want to call him names, do it over PMs or instant messengers of some kind.
-
...And there I can call him all the names I like? Honest?
-
Hermmm... I see now why razor's title is 'Target Drone'
He makes a post like this, and everyone locks on...
Don't quite understand the point of this one though...
-
Um... Somebody please explain what exactly is wrong with Razor's post? He brought up a subject that can be discussed. That people can have opinions about. That Stryke 9 can ***** about.
Circle the 'odd sentence out' above.
-
this one ain't my fault, is it?
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
Um... Somebody please explain what exactly is wrong with Razor's post?
Don't look at me. I just gave my opinion on the subject. Thats all.
-
"Is this real" isn't a discussion point, it's gibberish. Same for a yes/no response as to "Why do we accept this (again the utter lack of specificity) as reality?" In order to have any real thought on the subject, one must cache it in the proper terminology to think about it, and there's no point in translating from idiotese just to strike up a topic only maybe two people (neither of them the creator, or any of you moaners) will be willing and/or able to follow. I mean, hell, look at it- if anyone wanted to answer his inane "question", they would have- instead y'all choose to whine about the manner in which others don't answer it, because you're hypocrites. At least I make no pretence to not wanting to go through with this crap again.
-
Any opinions?
Trying to get us to do your homework or something? :)
Real or not?
What one experiences, thats real yes.
Does one know what it means? lol, no.
-
Originally posted by castor
Trying to get us to do your homework or something? :)
no no. :lol: I just want opinions on this. That's all.
Hermmm... I see now why razor's title is 'Target Drone. He makes a post like this, and everyone locks on...
'
It happens all the time.
Anyway,
Never mind this. If you admins wanna close this it's fine with me.
-
You sound like they need your permission...
...Maybe you really are Shrike in disguise.
-
Difference?
If you "know" something, it's been proven to be true.
If you "believe" something, your opinion may be that it is true but it hasn't been proven true.
-
Originally posted by Razor
Carefull. I think I sense rascism here.
I sense a misuse of the word rascism.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
...Maybe you really are Shrike in disguise.
What brings you to that conclusion?
-
Funny that the Matrix seems to be the peak of modern philosophy in the general populace.
Quite honestly, the topics discussed in the Matrix are thoughts a reasonably thoughtful five year old has when he stares out the car window.
It's the origin of the "I think, therefore I am" statement. Which means that the fact the thinker exists in some form is the only thing that can be proven.
not quite.
EDIT: this excerpt explains better than my explanation:
The two most widely known of Descartes' philosophical ideas are those of a method of hyperbolic doubt, and the argument that, though he may doubt, he cannot doubt that he exists. The first of these comprises a key aspect of Descartes' philosophical method. As noted above, he refused to accept the authority of previous philosophers - but he also refused to accept the obviousness of his own senses. In the search for a foundation for philosophy, whatever could be doubted must be rejected. He resolves to trust only that which is clearly and distinctly seen to be beyond any doubt. In this manner, Descartes peels away the layers of beliefs and opinions that clouded his view of the truth. But, very little remains, only the simple fact of doubting itself, and the inescapable inference that something exists doubting, namely Descartes himself.
His next task is to reconstruct our knowledge piece by piece, such that at no stage is the possibility of doubt allowed to creep back in. In this manner, Descartes proves that he himself must have the basic characterisitc of thinking, and that this thinking thing (mind) is quite distinct from his body; the existence of a God; the existence and nature of the external world; and so on. What is important in this for Descartes is, first, that he is showing that knowledge is genuinely possible (and thus that sceptics must be mistaken), and, second, that, more particularly, a mathematically-based scientific knowledge of the material world is possible.
-
(http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc15.jpg)
-
Bah! no jam.
-
*First thing that pops into KT's head after reading the last two posts*
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/martin.gimpl/tjande/images/intro.jpg)
-
the matrix's success is based on one smart move the Wakowski brothers made: make people think, but only make them think as much as a 13 year old can, otherwise it goes over there head and they can't grasp it. the principle idea behind the matrix-that the world we live in may be an illusion" has been thought of before by people thousands of years ago, and is pretty much just scratching the surface of this kind of philosophy, but the target audience can't grasp much more than that.
-
Originally posted by Razor
In the beggining of this school year, on religion classes we discussed the differences between two things: knowing and believing. Then the teacher started to talk about things like: Is this real? Why do we accept this as reality? ETC.....
I mean, it seems that we have a Morpheus in our school. :doubt:
Any opinions?
Religion classes? i remember having such a thing forced onto me at the Catholic High school i attended....:rolleyes:
i remember my Year 11 Religion teacher..an ex-cop... so yeah.. he cared about the classes as much as we did:p
-
I sat in my Religious Education GCSE and wrote about how I can't stand religion of any kind and how the world would be far better of without it. I got a D.
-
Funny, I watched matrix for the special effects, I'll leave the relativity to the directors ;)
Flipside :D
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
*First thing that pops into KT's head after reading the last two posts*
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/martin.gimpl/tjande/images/intro.jpg)
Oo;; Toe Jam and Earl! Woooo.
-
Kami: I don't think that excerpt really explained the thinking behind the phrase, it was more a rundown of the meditation as a whole. And attributions are nice.
Anyway, Descartes's phrase can be interpreted as having been arrived at several ways- particularly when taken out of context (I think I recall him going on to explain himself, but I'll have to find that later), but if memory serves me the upthrust is that if he didn't exist there'd be nobody to do the thinking- you can't have a nonexistent reference point. Pretty straighforward if you think about it.
Something he overlooked (which was where I arrived at when I tried his procedure) is that existence is, basically, defined as what we see. After all, what definition for reality is there other than our universe? There could be another "real" world behind this one, hidden by a mass of complex illusions, but since we can't see it or know of its existence and it has no direct bearing on our reality, it might as well not exist, and postulating its nature is a futile and mildly stupid task, sorta like wondering what unicorn farts would smell like. As far as it matters, what we see is more or less what we get, and any reality beyond that is, at least for now, inaccessible- hence, our universe exists, or at least is more demonstrably "real" than anything else by a good deal (and what better measure of existence than that?).
This doesn't mean it exists in just the way we think it exists, of course. There always are and always will be almost infinite unknown variables- but until they act on something within our perception, their existence is entirely theoretical, and shouldn't be assumed.
-
Well, I guess I'm not really qualified to participate in most of this conversation. But if you want an opinion... I think it's real. Personal experience is all I've got to go off, so it's a silly thing to say I suppose, but ah well. ;)