Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: suckmymuscle on December 10, 2010, 08:00:08 AM
-
If you can figure Wittgenstein out, you are on your way to making sense of Tbombz's and Falcon's posts. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0cN_bpLrxk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0cN_bpLrxk)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
not sure whats so hard to understand there. he has a very simple idea
-
not sure whats so hard to understand there. he has a very simple idea
I don't like agnostics.... they are silly
-
I don't like agnostics.... they are silly
Why?
-
I don't like agnostics.... they are silly
i know you are connecting that somehow, but its beyond me... how does that related to the video or my comment?
-
not sure whats so hard to understand there. he has a very simple idea
Yes, a very simple idea. Go read "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and tell me that is simple. Please summarize that in a single sentence if it is so simple.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
6.4311 ???
(http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/13/l_bc6020924a8441cc838a49acd14ac9c8.jpg)
-
Yes, a very simple idea. Go read "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and tell me that is simple. Please summarize that in a single sentence if it is so simple.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
sure. (it is pretty much what wittgensteing did in that video you posted)
There are no real philosophical problems, only differences in language.
:)
-
The message gets muddied by the professors Ego
-
The message gets muddied by the professors Ego
??? excuse me??
-
wittgenstein is alright.
if yall are interested in some good philosophy, heres two of my favorites:
Gottfried Leibniz
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/
William James
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/
-
sure. (it is pretty much what wittgensteing did in that video you posted)
There are no real philosophical problems, only differences in language.
:)
That's not what he says at all. It is not "differences" in language, but rather the inability of language to express logical propositions without contradictions because language cannnot describe thoughts accurately like an equation describes it.
Mathematics has solutions because equations describe logical propositions accurately. Language is incapable of this because the definitions of terms in language are imprecise, so any logical proposition that is expressed verbally(a philosophy problem) is inheritantly contradictory.
I think it's funny that philosophy students take two years of hardcore logic followed by two years of hardcore analytical philosophy before they even get to Wittgenstein, and yet "Tbombz" from Getbig things he has it all figured out. :-X
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Why?
Because why don't we listen and just discard all knowledge and rediscover it every day. We don't know the sun will rise tomorrow. Why bother even exchanging knowledge..its all pointless. Might as will sit alone by ourselves and bob our heads up and down.
-
That's not what he says at all. It is not "differences" in language, but rather the inability of language to express logical propositions without contradictions because language cannnot describe thoughts accurately like an equation describes it.
Mathematics has solutions because equations describe logical propositions accurately. Language is incapable of this because the definitions of terms in language are imprecise, so any logical proposition that is expressed verbally(a philosophy problem) is inheritantly contradictory.
I think it's funny that philosophy students take two years of hardcore logic followed by two years of hardcore analytical philosophy before they even get to Wittgenstein, and yet "Tbombz" from Getbig things he has it all figured out. :-X
SUCKMYMUSCLE
um, you asked for one sentence. I gave you one sentence. all you did was explain in more detail what my sentence meant.
-
um, you asked for one sentence. I gave you one sentence. all you did was explain in more detail what my sentence meant.
No, what I said is completely different from what I said. Not even in the same ballpark. Sorry. It has nothing to do with differences in language. Nothing!
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Because why don't we listen and just discard all knowledge and rediscover it every day. We don't know the sun will rise tomorrow. Why bother even exchanging knowledge..its all pointless. Might as will sit alone by ourselves and bob our heads up and down.
somebodies in an awefully pessimistic mood. ;D
have you ever benefited from knowledge recieved or knowledge earned? the answer is of course a resounding yes. if it werent so then you would not exist. proof that the exchange of knowledge, the build up of knowledge, is beneficial and worthy of time.
now, about it all being pointless in the end anyways? well, most likely true. however, you havent commited suicide yet, so obviously you do see a "point" in the present, and thus you should see a point in the buildup of knowledge.
again... i dont see how that comment relates to agnosticism nor to i see how agnosticism relates o the original post.. ijm just working with what you give me.
-
No, what I said is completely different from what I said. Not even in the same ballpark. Sorry. It has nothing to do with differences in language. Nothing!
SUCKMYMUSCLE
::)
"Language is incapable of this because the definitions of terms in language are imprecise, so any logical proposition that is expressed verbally(a philosophy problem) is inheritantly contradictory."
= differences in language
:)
-
somebodies in an awefully pessimistic mood. ;D
have you ever benefited from knowledge recieved or knowledge earned? the answer is of course a resounding yes. if it werent so then you would not exist. proof that the exchange of knowledge, the build up of knowledge, is beneficial and worthy of time.
now, about it all being pointless in the end anyways? well, most likely true. however, you havent commited suicide yet, so obviously you do see a "point" in the present, and thus you should see a point in the buildup of knowledge.
again... i dont see how that comment relates to agnosticism nor to i see how agnosticism relates o the original post.. ijm just working with what you give me.
He spoke on inferring meanings from words and i related it to agnosticism. The ability to infer things is what knowledge is based on. We test that knowledge and if the results are the same we hold on to those thoughts.
-
He spoke on inferring meanings from words and i related it to agnosticism. The ability to infer things is what knowledge is based on. We test that knowledge and if the results are the same we hold on to those thoughts.
ok, but how exactly are you relating that to agnosticism?
-
ok, but how exactly are you relating that to agnosticism?
The example of the lion. I saw a similarity there. We can observe the lion and infer things from its actions.
-
Yes, a very simple idea. Go read "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and tell me that is simple. Please summarize that in a single sentence if it is so simple.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
What we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence.
;)
-
The example of the lion. I saw a similarity there. We can observe the lion and infer things from its actions.
??? your either over or under my head. dont get me wrong, im not trying to bate you into an argument not am i disagreeing with you- just trying to get into the heart of your sentiment, as i know your an intelligent deep thinking guy and educated in philosophy
are you saying that we can infer from the universe, from existence, whether or not god exists? and that agnostics should choose one side or the other based on what they infer from their experience??
-
the road to zion
-
??? your either over or under my head. dont get me wrong, im not trying to bate you into an argument not am i disagreeing with you- just trying to get into the heart of your sentiment, as i know your an intelligent deep thinking guy and educated in philosophy
are you saying that we can infer from the universe, from existence, whether or not god exists? and that agnostics should choose one side or the other based on what they infer from their experience??
No.. technically everyone is agnostic. I can't prove that there isn't a god but on a 10 point scale, 10 being an atheist, and 1 being an agnostic, i am a 9.9999999999. I can't disprove the tooth fairy or the mumba at the bottom of the sea but i choose not to believe in those things. So technically i am an agnostic because i am not 100% sure there is no god but chances are good that there isn't one. Just as chances are good that there is not a talking tea pot that orbits somewhere between earth and mars.
-
"Language is incapable of this because the definitions of terms in language are imprecise, so any logical proposition that is expressed verbally(a philosophy problem) is inheritantly contradictory."
= differences in language
"SIGH"
And the really sad thing is that you really believe that you're right... :-X
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
(http://americanlettering.com/chan/New/moar_cake.jpg)
-
No.. technically everyone is agnostic. I can't prove that there isn't a god but on a 10 point scale, 10 being an atheist, and 1 being an agnostic, i am a 9.9999999999. I can't disprove the tooth fairy or the mumba at the bottom of the sea but i choose not to believe in those things. So technically i am an agnostic because i am not 100% sure there is no god but chances are good that there isn't one. Just as chances are good that there is not a talking tea pot that orbits somewhere between earth and mars.
'What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.' - Chris Hitchens ;)
-
What we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence.
;)
Ha ha ha ha...much better done. You, unlike that dumbass Tbombz, actually knows what you are talking about.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
'What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.' - Chris Hitchens ;)
You liked that one didn't you. I bet it just sent a tickle up your leg ::)
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rxKjDLO5gW4/SshjeX5cvII/AAAAAAAABHE/FiSv7R6ngKw/s320/Richard+Dawkins+-+The+God+Delusion+-.jpg)
-
Ha ha ha ha...much better done. You, unlike that dumbass Tbombz, actually knows what you are talking about.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Who's your favourite philosopher, SMM?
-
No.. technically everyone is agnostic. I can't prove that there isn't a god but on a 10 point scale, 10 being an atheist, and 1 being an agnostic, i am a 9.9999999999. I can't disprove the tooth fairy or the mumba at the bottom of the sea but i choose not to believe in those things. So technically i am an agnostic because i am not 100% sure there is no god but chances are good that there isn't one. Just as chances are good that there is not a talking tea pot that orbits somewhere between earth and mars.
lol. ok, now is where i must part paths and disagree. one thing that is undebatable is the apparent infinite complexity of existence. the idea of matter, the idea of life, the idea of existence in general is completely incomprehensible. if you take existence at face value, you must asssert that the universe is eternal, infinite, and , at least in a sense, omnipotent. While this may not suggest a diety, it is certainly "GOD" in the trraditional sense. i dont see any room for debate about the existence of God when you take this into account. only the details are left to be filled in.
'What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.' - Chris Hitchens ;)
um, no. denial of a proposition requires proof, even if the propositon has no evidence for its being true. you cant say either way unless youve got proof to back up what your saying.
-
Who's your favourite philosopher, SMM?
Aristotle because he was the first to formalize deductive logic as well as identify the process of induction. I would have Kant in second for explicitating why we'll never know truth "in itself". "Critique Of Pure Reason" has got to be one of my top two books of all time together with "Crime And Punishment" from Dostoevsky. In third I would put Gödel even though he was more of a mathematical logician.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
lol. ok, now is where i must part paths and disagree. one thing that is undebatable is the apparent infinite complexity of existence. the idea of matter, the idea of life, the idea of existence in general is completely incomprehensible. if you take existence at face value, you must asssert that the universe is eternal, infinite, and , at least in a sense, omnipotent. While this may not suggest a diety, it is certainly "GOD" in the trraditional sense. i dont see any room for debate about the existence of God when you take this into account. only the details are left to be filled in.
um, no. denial of a proposition requires proof, even if the propositon has no evidence for its being true. you cant say either way unless youve got proof to back up what your saying.
You can't fill in the unknown with god. That is silly. God is a man made creation. If we were to do this lets reform the whole education system.
1) 2+2=?
a) 2
b)jesus
c)4
d) want to fight?
2) One difference between monkeys and apes is?
a) Apes do not have tails
b) Jesus
c) they are both primates
d) Want to fight?
3) An onlyme weighs how many metric tons?
a) jesus
b) the limit does not exist
c) ∞
d) Want to fight?
-
You can't fill in the unknown with god. That is silly. God is a man made creation. If we were to do this lets reform the whole education system.
careful now, your not being logical. i did not "fill the unknown with god". what i did was describe existence: infinite, eternal, omnipotent.
taking this definiton of existence, and comparing it to the traditional defintion of what God is, or what God would be if he did exist(an infinite, eternal, omnipotent "being"), we can conclude that God does exist, at the very least, in the form of existence.
look up panthiesm if your not familiar with it. stems from spinoza, adopted by einstein. everyone must accept the existence of God in the way that panthiests do. it is unquestionable. now, whether god is anything more than simply a collection of all things to have ever and will ever exist, that is what is up for debate.
-
careful now, your not being logical. i did not "fill the unknown with god". what i did was describe existence: infinite, eternal, omnipotent.
taking this definiton of existence, and comparing it to the traditional defintion of what God is, or what God would be if he did exist(an infinite, eternal, omnipotent "being"), we can conclude that God does exist, at the very least, in the form of existence.
look up panthiesm if your not familiar with it. stems from spinoza, adopted by einstein. everyone must accept the existence of God in the way that panthiests do. it is unquestionable. now, whether god is anything more than simply a collection of all things to have ever and will ever exist, that is what is up for debate.
Then we must take in account for the talking tea pot and the mumba that hides behind the sun away from earths view :D.
-
Then we must take in account for the talking tea pot and the mumba that hides behind the sun away from earths view :D.
:-\ dissapointing reply. meh, cant expect everyone to be as open minded aand level headed as I am. :P
-
:-\ dissapointing reply. meh, cant expect everyone to be as open minded aand level headed as I am. :P
God = energy yea yea yea i get it. So technically i am apart of god blah blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz zZZZZZZZZ. I think it is another extreme point of view. People take things and blow them to the extreme like positive thinking. "Our reality is a product of the mind and how we think about things". Ok cool right? Then you get some asshole trying to turn it into magical thinking and use it to get himself a parking spot closest to walmart.
-
God = energy yea yea yea i get it. So technically i am apart of god blah blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz zZZZZZZZZ. I think it is another extreme point of view. People take things and blow them to the extreme like positive thinking. "Our reality is a product of the mind and how we think about things". Ok cool right? Then you get some asshole trying to turn it into magical thinking and use it to get himself a parking spot closest to walmart.
hmmm.. nah, thats not what i was getting at. did you look up panthiesm? can you at least admit that the God of panthiests is necessary? I would like you to realize that much, if only that much.
-
??? excuse me??
Yelling is the Ego's way of saying I'm superior than you. The ultimate form of intimidation. If he really believed in what he was saying, he wouldn't have to intimidate people to listen to him.
-
Yelling is the Ego's way of saying I'm superior than you. The ultimate form of intimidation. If he really believed in what he was saying, he wouldn't have to intimidate people to listen to him.
your talking about wittgensteins reaction to the responses of the fellow professors? if so, i agree that he was out of line yelling and storming out, however i dont think it reflects on his philosophy at all
-
your talking about wittgensteins reaction to the responses of the fellow professors? if so, i agree that he was out of line yelling and storming out, however i dont think it reflects on his philosophy at all
Understandable. But my senses felt that he was agitated through out the whole clip from the very beginning. Maybe he was just a very bad actor trying to rely information. Many CIA agents/coops do this very thing for COINTEL.
-
I am eating a very pleasant pinneaple. :D
SUCKMYMUSCLE