Philosophy 101

[The Sum of Awe]

Actually, dealing with money and producing energy are all courses going through the ethical and moral process :yes:

Explain how exactly.

[color]Which is why it is important to the complete understanding of philosophy.[/COLOR]

A man was struggling with many philosophical questions, so he decided to research different philosophies. After studying for hours in his library, he discovered a similarity between almost all philosophers - they used experience.

So he went away for a while to experience, he lived in nature and observed it while thinking about how it could answer his philosophical questions.

When he returned, have it been 47 years, a young lad asked him, "What answers have you found?"

The man looked down at him with a frown, hardly being able to see him through the saggy beard. He said, "I have come to realize that we will never know answers of philosophy, because we do not live long enough to discover."

 

[Willamena]

But you're forgetting a big part of politics, economics. As we survive off it, we have to control it, otherwise we wont survive off of it anymore: money.

Economics is a part of politics, in the category of theories of the best ways that people should grow and thrive.

Believe it or not, there was politics and economics before "money" was invented.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Economics is a part of politics, in the category of theories of the best ways that people should grow and thrive.

Yes, anything else I don't like to consider politics, just because it's usually unimportant and could be called morality and ethics.

Believe it or not, there was politics and economics before "money" was invented.

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact it's not about morality, it's about civilization.

 

[Sir Doom]

All philosophy seems to boil down to economics in my opinion. But that's only because I think everything boils down to power and that power is the only universal measure of worth. The only real currency, in other words. But that's just my philosophy, after all

 

[Willamena]

Yes, anything else I don't like to consider politics, just because it's usually unimportant and could be called morality and ethics.

Ethics/morality is a different thing, though.

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact it's not about morality, it's about civilization.

Okay, *whoosh*, that went right over my head.

 

[Octavia156]

Actually, dealing with money and producing energy are all courses going through the ethical and moral process :yes:

Which is why it is important to the complete understanding of philosophy.

SO what does a complete understanding of Philosophy give you then in your opinion - you say its so important?

Have you arrive at Truth? no... you're still wanking over semantics.

The only way to find Truth and therefore acquire True Wisdom is through Gnosis.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

SO what does a complete understanding of Philosophy give you then in your opinion - you say its so important?

Have you arrive at Truth? no... you're still wanking over semantics.

The only way to find Truth and therefore acquire True Wisdom is through Gnosis.

When you find the Truth, you no longer care about wisdom

 

[Orias]

SO what does a complete understanding of Philosophy give you then in your opinion - you say its so important?

Have you arrive at Truth? no... you're still wanking over semantics.

I have indeed acquired truth! Do you want me to share?

The only way to find Truth and therefore acquire True Wisdom is through Gnosis.

And where does your treasure map lead? To know of a means is just as important as knowing a way.

Gnosis is laughable, at times. And I don't mean that as an insult.

 

[Orias]

When you find the Truth, you no longer care about wisdom

Or maybe many mistake being wise for a social custom.

 

[Sir Doom]

SO what does a complete understanding of Philosophy give you then in your opinion - you say its so important?

Have you arrive at Truth? no... you're still wanking over semantics.

The only way to find Truth and therefore acquire True Wisdom is through Gnosis.

Wait, wait, wait.

To find TRUTH and gain TRUE WISDOM you need GNOSIS

What were you saying about semantics again? I must have missed it...

 

[Polarbear]

I would say that epistemology is meta-logic. It's logic applied to itself.

I would rather describe epistemology as the study of what knowledge is and how it's obtained.

 

[Orias]

Epistemology is essentially the scientific method, its about nature, origin, methods and validity and the limits of what humans are capable of knowing about a certain object or concept.

 

[Polarbear]

Epistemology is essentially the scientific method, its about nature, origin, methods and validity and the limits of what humans are capable of knowing about a certain object or concept.

The scientfic method is a tool for discovering knowledge (and it's not the only one), not the reasoning behind how it's discovered, hence the scientific method is not epistemology.

 

[Orias]

The scientfic method is a tool for discovering knowledge (and it's not the only one), not the reasoning behind how it's discovered, hence the scientific method is not epistemology.

Actually scientific hypothesis can often be conclusive in its verifying of origin, epistemology is part of science hence following the method behind it.

 

[Polarbear]

Actually scientific hypothesis can often be conclusive in its verifying of origin, epistemology is part of science hence following the method behind it.

I doubt your claim. How can science prove the basis for knowledge? Doesn't the use of the scientific method assume that it has been found to be a sound method of discovering knowledge already? I mean it can't prove itself, that would be circular reasoning.

 

[Orias]

I doubt yout claim. How can sciene prove the basis for knowledge? Doesn't the use of the scientific method assume that it has been found to be a sound method of discovering knowledge already? I mean it can't prove itself, that would be circular reasoning.

Science has contributed little to man's complete knowledge of things, as a large portion of man's existence is "unscientific". Really though, by theory, science can determine preconceived knowledge, but then its not really a discovery.

Science can prove the basis for knowledge, in the same way that we prove the basis for us being capable of knowing things

 

[Polarbear]

Science has contributed little to man's complete knowledge of things, as a large portion of man's existence is "unscientific".

Xeper, brother!

Really though, by theory, science can determine preconceived knowledge

How exactly?

Science can prove the basis for knowledge, in the same way that we prove the basis for us being capable of knowing things

And how do we prove our capability of knowing things? I don't think my way is the same as yours.

 

[Orias]

How exactly?

Stuff like gravity and black holes.

And how do we prove our capability of knowing things? I don't think my way is the same as yours.

Perception

Xeper on!

 

[Polarbear]

Stuff like gravity and black holes.

Um I didn't ask what science could prove, but how it could prove preconceived knowledge? Maybe we are defining our terms differently here though, when I hear preconceived knowledge I think of apriori knowlege, like the laws of logic according to Socrates and such.

Perception

Xeper on!

And how do we know perception is valid? Can you prove it?

 

[Orias]

Um I didn't ask what science could prove, but how it could prove preconceived knowledge? Maybe we are defining our terms differently here though, when I hear preconceived knowledge I think of apriori knowlege, like the laws of logic according to Socrates and such.

It describes things we already know, it allows us to basically take guessing to another level of perception. Like gravity, and black holes and stuff like that.

We don't have to touch fire to know that it is harmful.

And how do we know perception is valid? Can you prove it?

I know my perception is valid, pertaining to what I'm talking about, because I can continue to do so in a coherent and comprehensive way.

Also because we perceive, without perception we could not have this conversation nor could we not have this conversation.

And what does proof rely on to you, credibility?