Arts & Humanities: Philosophy: “Question: Im 60yr now, where does the time go? I barely have time to do anything.?” plus 5 more |
- Question: Im 60yr now, where does the time go? I barely have time to do anything.?
- Question: What are the chances of becoming a great thinker? (like a Descartes or a Kant)?
- Question: Why do philosophers refer to ethics as the only necessary knowledge?
- Question: Psychology and philosophy branches?
- Question: If choices are not predetermined or caused by anything, where do they come from?
- Question: Was Socrates wrong when he said "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"?
| Question: Im 60yr now, where does the time go? I barely have time to do anything.? Posted: 21 Aug 2015 09:27 AM PDT Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel  |
| Question: What are the chances of becoming a great thinker? (like a Descartes or a Kant)? Posted: 21 Aug 2015 09:26 AM PDT Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel |
| Question: Why do philosophers refer to ethics as the only necessary knowledge? Posted: 21 Aug 2015 07:41 AM PDT Knowledge is a compound of power and freedom Albert Einstein says: "More the knowledge, lesser the ego. Lesser the knowledge more the ego. They say it because without moral discipline, self-control, mental control,social orderliness and strict adherence to some highest level of moral standards, we can not proceed further in spiritual emancipation. Ego is also a major hurdle to our right pursuits. In short one should have crystal clear mind and pristine pure heart to thoroughly understand this THEORY |
| Question: Psychology and philosophy branches? Posted: 21 Aug 2015 07:25 AM PDT If you want to make money -- psychology If you want to study real things that matter -- psychology If you can't make up your mind between bicycle repair or astrophysics -- psychology. If you were meant to study philosophy it would not be a choice. Philosophy is a waste of time for those not drawn to it. If you are drawn to philosophy but choose psychology for the other above reasons you might later regret it. But if philosophy isn't "it" then all the above reasons apply. |
| Question: If choices are not predetermined or caused by anything, where do they come from? Posted: 21 Aug 2015 04:24 AM PDT That's an interesting question - how do we know we didn't choose those things? Perhaps there is an existence beyond "human" - beyond language and these bodies - in which case, it would stand to reason that our understanding of it would also be beyond language - in fact, it would even make sense if what we are was beyond ideas ABOUT it, since we could never experience not being it. If we aren't "bodies", then whatever we are, we would be SO "it" that we would not be able to experience NOT being it. If "this" is merely a variation of our experience of ourselves, then it is absolutely conceivable that we chose the circumstances of our "birth" and that those "language-less" choices and ideas would not be on the tip of our tongue but otherwise understood - i.e. "felt" and recognized in other ways by other means. The point is, there's no way of knowing whether we chose the circumstances of our "birth" or not - at least, not from the "learned", word-covered human perspective that perceives "this" as some kind of definitive identity. What if it's not? I'mnot talking about God but, in this instance, certain "feelings" or inexplicable perceptions would certainly explain the birth of the idea of Gods, wouldn't it? If we unlearn some kind of "truth" about our reality by way of something as small-minded and feeble as language, it can't change the facts of the matter - whatever they may be. Do man's general ideas about "life" and "existence" feel right to you? Isn't there something in you that screams "No!!! This isn't life!"? Something visceral? There is in ME - I can TELL ya! It screams its head off! It sounds like "F* this!" and "Bite me!" and "You're not the boss of me!" and things of that sort, to ME and even thought that's called "weird" or "wrong", it's obviously felt by everyone and what makes me "weird" is nothing more than the fact that I admit it and talk about it while most don't DARE. They call life or varisous aspects of life as "no fun" but what if "fun" is the point? What if "fun" isn't what man thinks it is? What if its his true beingness? Man perceives "fun" as "frivolous" - but what if it's NOT? What if it's the true being of what we are? Most people haven't experienced an egoless, brainstorming interaction since they were children. What if that's who we are? What if we're here for the "fun" of it? If "this" isn't "life" - if we're more than bodies - then "this" can't be the "serious" endeavor people make it out to be. If "this" isn't who we are, then it's something we're "doing" and "experiencing". People who think "fun" is frivolous haven't experienced the coming together of two or more minds in a brainstorm. The ideas don't merely double or quadruple. They SKYROCKET! The blending and molding of mulitiple perspectives is...there's nothing else like it. A lot of "lone" inventors brainstorm with themselves - switching from one perspective to another very quickly. But when there are TWO - holy MOLY! The distance BETWEEN the perspectives is greater and the leaps are substantially higher and take them much, MUCH further! The point is, if "choice" exists at all, then we chose to come here and experience this for whatEVER reason. And that reason can't be to "fix" anything or to "work". It MUST be for "the fun of it" because the only thing that prevents living life to the fullest is fear and fear can only come from the idea that "this" is all there is. Otherwise, there is no danger and no reason for fear of ANY kind. I would guess - if we chose to come here - then we chose to come here to "lose" ourselves and our understanding of who and what we REALLY are in order to have the experience of finding ourselves again because NOTHING is more fun than the ricochet off of a false idea. You can't beat THAT with a STICK! It's AWESOME and THAT'S why I LOVE being wrong! I LOVE screwing up! I LOVE the "ricochet" and I can TOTALLY see why one would choose to come here from "elsewhere" to get all tangled up and "wrong". It TOTALLY makes sense to me because where else could one GET such an experience? Can you imagine a place where worse things could be experienced by a consciousness that knows it will survive? I can't. I think this is "the bottom" and I think "the bottom" offers the very BEST ricochet ride available to consciousness - IF that's what we are...but even if we aren't - I've been to the bottom of this "bottom" and can attest to how fantastic that ricochet is. I can't do it again, obviously, because, apparently, you can't go back to an old perspective. Which makes sense, if it's an "evolution", but who cares? Because the NEW perspective makes this a whole other world than most are experiencing and THAT'S a whole OTHER kind of FUN! |
| Question: Was Socrates wrong when he said "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"? Posted: 21 Aug 2015 12:24 AM PDT "Was Socrates wrong when he said "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"? " That actually seems paradoxical. To say you know that you know nothing you would be admitting you know something, which is that you know you know nothing. Given it's a paradox, I would say he is right and wrong at the same time. If I met him, I would ask: If you know nothing, how do you know you know nothing? Rather, I prefer to go with Descartes on this one. He thinks he knows nothing. That is true wisdom: saying you think you know nothing. The only thing one knows is that they think. If they think, they exist. Nothing else is knowable. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Arts & Humanities: Philosophy To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment