Ask a normal guy studying philosophy anything

[00_Juris]

Not everyone who lifts is appealing, and not all of lifting produces same results for every person. It can't be set as a rule that always exists. Lifting is everything for someone and nothing but useless stuff for the other one. And the bodies produced by lifting and their appearance varies a lot. Lifting is a hobby, a life, or a path to self-discipline. It surely is a journey and I think it's a beautiful one. many things can be learned about oneself with lifting.

Do you even syllogism? You're supposed to accept premises as given and make a valid deduction.

[h3h3]

Do you think human evolution as a species should have ended at the hunters/gatherers stage? Where survival of the fittest still counts and we are rid of such bullshít as religion, the forming of society, and all the misery that brings with it (misery, essentially being meta-cognition)?

Discussed this with a friend of mine who studies philosophy (and can also be considered 'normal'), he said that is one of Rousseau's ideas. I myself am not sure wether I agree with this. My first thought is yes, the moment we advanced out of the survival of the fittest stage into the society we are now (which was of course a long run) was the moment we placed ourselves above the chain of evolution (natural selection eliminated -> no more evolution of our species -> apparently we are the perfect species in our chain of evolution), and thus that was the moment we placed ourselves above life as it was intended to be.

Then on second thought, I realized that this way you are restricting your views on what life should be (implying life 'should' be anything) --> you are not thinking free. So what the heck, why can't we evolve out of the natural selection stage? And in what way would that essentially be different from all other life (including our ancestors)?

Then on third thought, when the bottle of whisky was empty, I came to the conclusion that without anyone to think about misery, there is essentially no misery so I think we should have stopped evolving at the hunter/gatherer stage (VERY boldly spoken, can';t be arsed to type out the rest). I believe this is basically what the story about the tree that does or does not make sound if it falls when no one is around, is about (right?).

I study psychology but I like me some philosphy every now and then as well.

1. Sometimes I come to thoughts where I believe humans shouldn't exist at all. I don't think it's possible for humans to stay at the same stage forever, like we would in your scenario, be in hunter stage all of the time. And to this day, the survival of the fittest still counts, is just that conditions in which you have to be fit, have changed. It's more about intelligence nowadays and the religion and the forms of society were made by the fittest. They wanted to ensure their survival, they did what needed to be done to survive and then more, they got greedy and expanded until they lived very comfortable. The society nowadays is still about survival of the fittest. And how can we be certain that there was no misery back then? I think people still died of thirst/hunger and all the bad things that are happening now, were happening back then as well. Only different ways of the same thing happening is now. There were wars back then, they just used spears instead of bombs. So being at that stage wouldn't "fix" anything I believe.

2. I don't think our evolution has stopped. We are progressing everyday, be it anatomically or scientifically. So much have our bodies changed in the last 200 years is very interesting. We've grown taller, smarter and you can see the difference between "evolution" all over the world. How have some cultures progressed different than others. Asians are starting to develop our heights because of proper nutrition. Change in our daily intake of certain foods has surely changed our bodies very much. We're constantly adapting to the world and how to survive the best in it. We've advanced in technology so much, we can fly into space and we can now grasp what was unthinkable only few hundred years ago. And few hundred years is nothing compared to thousands of years we've been here. And we are at the top of the food chain, we can kill what we want, whenever we want. Our existence is only endangered by ourselves. Nothing will get rid of us, unless a catastrophe on the scale of a full planet, or we will get rid of ourselves. I only see those two options.

3. I'm sure we will evolve out of the natural selection with time, the only question is if we will survive until we come to such realizations. I don't know how we will change, I really have no clue about the future of our progress, I can only predict our downfall.

4. Just because we don't think some things, that doesn't make them nonexistent, if that were the case, then our minds could make things come to an existence and we would have the power to create things. Misery would still be, we just wouldn't perceive it as misery. If no one was to think about certain thing, that certain thing would lose its existence. I don't see how is that possible. Perhaps in the mind of an omnipotent entity. But as much as it goes for us, be it we think about the thing or we don't think about the thing, we do not affect its existence.

[Massgain]

How do you know you exist?

u srs? if claim that i dont exist the very statement nullifies what it aims to affirm.

[h3h3]

are your parents paying for your degree? if so youre an *******. what a waste. what a god damn waste.

Such is life in moscow.

[Merauder]

Yeah I know, it can also change your view of the world by a lot, at the beginning you think, this is just some load of bull****, but if you think about it, you start to go: holy ****, these guys have a point, how could I ignore all of this before?

There's no way back

[h3h3]

I'm sorry to tell you this man, but you're not a philosopher, at all, you're just a regular ignorant dude trying to act wise and deep. Just look at your post, does this even remotely sound like serious philosophy to you? Get proper education instead (and this is coming from a guy who loves philosophy), if you think you're so good at logical thinking and pondering/contemplating, do what I did and go to law school instead, you have several philosophy classes there and you still get education on a proper profession (PROFESSION, because this is the ultimate goal of going to college, learning a PROFESSION). You'll regret being poor someday, you'll end up realizing that happiness actually involves having access to money/resources/primary social goods (yes, this is serious philosophy, Political Philosophy to be specific). You're just a douche trying to sound smart.

No, I don't think my posts sound like serious philosophy. I don't know serious philosophy yet. I'm not that smart. I'm getting the education at the moment, this only my first year of philosophy studying. I don't know much, I barely know anything. I don't want to study law, if you think law is the best for you, then study law.

[h3h3]

Do you even syllogism? You're supposed to accept premises as given and make a valid deduction.

I didn't accept premises as given.

[h3h3]

Interesting that you found Marx and Nietzsche difficult. What have you read from them?

I haven't read that much, only paragraphs from different books that we were supposed to study for a certain subject.

[Massgain]

There's no way back

haha once the fires been lit theres no stopping it.

[Tharsos]

I haven't read that much, only paragraphs from different books that we were supposed to study for a certain subject.

Ah ok, maybe that's why it was difficult. You can read the communist manifesto in a few sittings. As a philosophical doctrine I was unimpressed and very disappointed, but as a political manifesto it is lovely.

As for Nietzsche, reading small excerpts of him is criminal. His writing is very sharp and fun to read, but it also makes him very easy to misinterpret if you read him out of context and then you end up with, for instance, Hitler using him to justify Nazism (well, misinterpretation and his anti-semitic sister).

[Market_Pantry]

Such is life in moscow.

what the fuk type of job do you expect to land with this degree other than being a philosophy teacher?

[Jalalalalalala]

1. Sometimes I come to thoughts where I believe humans shouldn't exist at all. I don't think it's possible for humans to stay at the same stage forever, like we would in your scenario, be in hunter stage all of the time. And to this day, the survival of the fittest still counts, is just that conditions in which you have to be fit, have changed. It's more about intelligence nowadays and the religion and the forms of society were made by the fittest. They wanted to ensure their survival, they did what needed to be done to survive and then more, they got greedy and expanded until they lived very comfortable. The society nowadays is still about survival of the fittest. And how can we be certain that there was no misery back then? I think people still died of thirst/hunger and all the bad things that are happening now, were happening back then as well. Only different ways of the same thing happening is now. There were wars back then, they just used spears instead of bombs. So being at that stage wouldn't "fix" anything I believe.

2. I don't think our evolution has stopped. We are progressing everyday, be it anatomically or scientifically. So much have our bodies changed in the last 200 years is very interesting. We've grown taller, smarter and you can see the difference between "evolution" all over the world. How have some cultures progressed different than others. Asians are starting to develop our heights because of proper nutrition. Change in our daily intake of certain foods has surely changed our bodies very much. We're constantly adapting to the world and how to survive the best in it. We've advanced in technology so much, we can fly into space and we can now grasp what was unthinkable only few hundred years ago. And few hundred years is nothing compared to thousands of years we've been here. And we are at the top of the food chain, we can kill what we want, whenever we want. Our existence is only endangered by ourselves. Nothing will get rid of us, unless a catastrophe on the scale of a full planet, or we will get rid of ourselves. I only see those two options.

3. I'm sure we will evolve out of the natural selection with time, the only question is if we will survive until we come to such realizations. I don't know how we will change, I really have no clue about the future of our progress, I can only predict our downfall.

4. Just because we don't think some things, that doesn't make them nonexistent, if that were the case, then our minds could make things come to an existence and we would have the power to create things. Misery would still be, we just wouldn't perceive it as misery. If no one was to think about certain thing, that certain thing would lose its existence. I don't see how is that possible. Perhaps in the mind of an omnipotent entity. But as much as it goes for us, be it we think about the thing or we don't think about the thing, we do not affect its existence.

... meh. I would try to go more in depth if I wasn't tired as fuk and didnt have an exam in 2 hours. You kind of missed my point at some things, but that may be my own fault.

[h3h3]

Ah ok, maybe that's why it was difficult. You can read the communist manifesto in a few sittings. As a philosophical doctrine I was unimpressed and very disappointed, but as a political manifesto it is lovely.

As for Nietzsche, reading small excerpts of him is criminal. His writing is very sharp and fun to read, but it also makes him very easy to misinterpret if you read him out of context and then you end up with, for instance, Hitler using him to justify Nazism (well, misinterpretation and his anti-semitic sister).

Thanks for your advice. My exams are coming up and I'll be reading ****ton very soon about everyone. What books do you recommend for me to read by Nietzsche?

[h3h3]

... meh. I would try to go more in depth if I wasn't tired as fuk and didnt have an exam in 2 hours. You kind of missed my point at some things, but that may be my own fault.

Good luck with your exam, knock em out tiger, you the man.

[h3h3]

what the fuk type of job do you expect to land with this degree other than being a philosophy teacher?

Read first page or 2nd, I mentioned somewhere some of the possibilities for a job.

[Market_Pantry]

Read first page or 2nd, I mentioned somewhere some of the possibilities for a job.

quote yourself. im not sifting through this dribble to get pissed off at myself for wasting my time on a fool. i mean that ihn the kindest way possible. change your major.

[h3h3]

quote yourself. im not sifting through this dribble to get pissed off at myself for wasting my time on a fool. i mean that ihn the kindest way possible. change your major.

No, I won't change my major. Jobs : teacher in either high school or faculty, depends on your education, librarian, writer for newspaper or on our own, TV stations, radios, magazine columns, translating(you also learn languages), I'm sure there are other things also.

[Tharsos]

Thanks for your advice. My exams are coming up and I'll be reading ****ton very soon about everyone. What books do you recommend for me to read by Nietzsche?

I put my philosophy project on hold a couple years ago and I stopped at the Germans, so to be honest I don't know Nietzsche very well. I have The Portable Nietzsche and Basic Writings of Nietzsche, although I've only read certain books in each of them. Together, they cover the majority of his work and they're translated by Walter Kaufman whose generally considered to be the preeminent expert on Nietzsche.

Have you read The Republic? Since you liked Apology, if you have even a passing interest in political philosophy I would definitely recommend it.

[Market_Pantry]

No, I won't change my major. Jobs : teacher in either high school or faculty, depends on your education, librarian, writer for newspaper or on our own, TV stations, radios, magazine columns, translating(you also learn languages), I'm sure there are other things also.

unless youre trying to be a teacher, thats just dumb... its your life

[00_Juris]

I didn't accept premises as given.

You don't have to accept the argument as truth in order to accept its validity. Jus sayin.

[Dialectician]

I'm sorry to tell you this man, but you're not a philosopher, at all, you're just a regular ignorant dude trying to act wise and deep. Just look at your post, does this even remotely sound like serious philosophy to you? Get proper education instead (and this is coming from a guy who loves philosophy), if you think you're so good at logical thinking and pondering/contemplating, do what I did and go to law school instead, you have several philosophy classes there and you still get education on a proper profession (PROFESSION, because this is the ultimate goal of going to college, learning a PROFESSION). You'll regret being poor someday, you'll end up realizing that happiness actually involves having access to money/resources/primary social goods (yes, this is serious philosophy, Political Philosophy to be specific). You're just a douche trying to sound smart.

i don't think he ever called himself a philosopher. in his thread title, he only said he was studying philosophy. that being said, i think all his responses have been highly UN-philosophical. but for you to make the jump from the discipline that he is studying, to him being impoverished, is pretty stupid. contrary to popular belief, philosophy majors actually end up making very good money. a natural by-product that comes from philosophical study is good reasoning abilities and the ability to communicate well. in life, those two things are quintessential.

sources backing my claim of philosophy majors going on to make good money:
- http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...Back-sort.html
- http://www.payscale.com/2008-best-colleges/degrees.asp

[Jaccogo]

I assume it starts when people start to realize they benefit from doing a good deed or a bad deed. Each person has many different factors affecting his personal growth and we know genetics and environment are one of the leading factors to determine a person's way of behavior and thinking. I think it starts to deviate here, because certain situations will benefit you more if you are cooperate with other people and help them, and other situations would be simply about survival and you're forced to think about yourself only.

There's no doubt that we do either good or bad deeds, because we gain benefit from them. We do whatever makes us feel better, or feel less worse, choosing the lesser evil in most scenarios when presented with a tough decision. We do what we can to get by as easy as possible, at least as easy as possible on our mind/spirit. Some will put themselves in grave danger and expose their bodies to levels of pain we can't imagine, but I assume it's easier for them this way, than to live without having done all those things they believe in.

And I agree on the last one, there's no real obligation to follow the moral codes, nothing really forces you to do only good deeds and be constantly moral. But what we have realized during our time on earth is that, if we work together and be nice for each other, we can achieve great things. It's all about the benefit in the end and in my opinion there's a greater benefit to be had by being moral, than by being immoral. Although there are still a lot of people who only care for the benefit of themselves, but they don't understand that benefit for all is also benefit for them.

I can't really explain what causes so much deviation apart from different upbringing and environments, perhaps not all humans share the same nature.

A few things that pop out at me:

If good and bad are decided by what makes us feel good or bad then wouldn't there have to be objective morality? We feel good BECAUSE we did something that we KNOW is the moral decision.

I'm assuming that you're going to say that things that further our personal goals make us feel good, so then by extension anything that furthers our personal goals is moral. In which case you're condoning every sane non-self-destructing action in the world. Also, if this is the case then relative morality isn't expressed through societies, but through selfishness.

[h3h3]

A few things that pop out at me:

If good and bad are decided by what makes us feel good or bad then wouldn't there have to be objective morality? We feel good BECAUSE we did something that we KNOW is the moral decision.

I'm assuming that you're going to say that things that further our personal goals make us feel good, so then by extension anything that furthers our personal goals is moral. In which case you're condoning every sane non-self-destructing action in the world. Also, if this is the case then relative morality isn't expressed through societies, but through selfishness.

I agree with you on the 2nd paragraph.

If good and bad are decided by what makes us feel good or bad then wouldn't there have to be objective morality? Why?

[magog704]

here

Reflective equilibrium is a state of balance or coherence among a set of beliefs arrived at by a process of deliberative mutual adjustment among general principles and particular judgments. Although he did not use the term, philosopher Nelson Goodman introduced the method of reflective equilibrium as an approach to justifying the principles of inductive logic. The term 'reflective equilibrium' was coined by John Rawls and popularized in his A Theory of Justice as a method for arriving at the content of the principles of justice.

Rawls argues that human beings have a "sense of justice" which is both a source of moral judgment and moral motivation. In Rawls's theory, we begin with "considered judgments" that arise from the sense of justice. These may be judgments about general moral principles (of any level of generality) or specific moral cases. If our judgments conflict in some way, we proceed by adjusting our various beliefs until they are in "equilibrium," which is to say that they are stable, not in conflict, and provide consistent practical guidance. Rawls argues that a set of moral beliefs in ideal reflective equilibrium describes or characterizes the underlying principles of the human sense of justice.

An example of the method of reflective equilibrium may be useful. Suppose Zachary believes in the general principle of always obeying the commands in the Bible, and mistakenly thinks that these are completely encompassed by every Old Testament command. Suppose also that he thinks that it is not ethical to stone people to death merely for being Wiccan. These views may come into conflict (see Exodus 22:18, but see John 8:7). If they do, Zachary will then have several choices. He can discard his general principle in search of a better one (for example, only obeying the Ten Commandments), modify his general principle (for example, choosing a different translation of the Bible, or including Jesus' teaching from John 8:7 "If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone" into his understanding), or change his opinions about the point in question to conform with his theory (by deciding that witches really should be killed). Whatever the decision, he has moved toward reflective equilibrium.

et cetera

[god_job_dave]

What do you think of thus spoke zaratrurstra

[deadsoul]

FOCKING LOL at finding Marx and Nietzsche hard to read...

Try reading some works by Kierkegaard. The dude is batshiit insane with his writing.

Odd that you find Kierkegaard difficult. What work in particular? The hardest of his concepts is his recursive definition of the self, but once you grasp that everything else falls in place.

On another note, I plan on learning German so I can read German philosophy proper.

[magog704]

Odd that you find Kierkegaard difficult. What work in particular? The hardest of his concepts is his recursive definition of the self, but once you grasp that everything else falls in place.

On another note, I plan on learning German so I can read German philosophy proper.

i have why i am so wise or the anti christ auf deutsch. i cant remember which.

Ich kann ein bischen Deutsch gelesen

i speak a tiny bit of french and i was gonna try and teach myself french by reading le nausee. shiit was impossible. brb 2 words per minute.

[deadsoul]

i have why i am so wise or the anti christ auf deutsch. i cant remember which.

Ich kann ein bischen Deutsch gelesen

i speak a tiny bit of french and i was gonna try and teach myself french by reading le nausee. shiit was impossible. brb 2 words per minute.

French is another good one. But probably more for literature and poetry than philosophy, at least for me.

Supposedly Borges taught himself to read German by reading a collection of Heinrich Heine's poetry with a German-Spanish dictionary in hand, which sounds dubious, but the man spent most of his time in libraries so his cognitive abilities were likely up there.

[ThundaHorz]

Cogito Ergo Sum?

need to rep

Because I think, I feel, I imagine, I wish, I lust, I love, I hate, I despise, I adore. If I am conscious, self aware and I have the ability to think, this pretty much suffices for my existence. Hence the famous saying, I think therefore I am. By descartes, if you want to know more, read Meditations by Descartes, first Meditations would be enough to understand completely, it's only like 20 pages long. Small book.

what if that is just your programming? What if your just a droid xeroxed from a special needs Filipino carpet comber? HOW do you know?

[Myriad88]

I studied enough units to qualify as a phil major, but thankfully studied an actually useful degree.

Beware of Being and Time. Absolute kunt of a book that is.