chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 A positive few for people to live there livesShould we always argue about historical views, pre defined ideas about this is that. Let that be religion or morals. Or ideas about maths or physics. Or history and geography. The one thing people have is free will. So we have many choices to make. It is up to us to make choices. If we always want to fight then we will always fight. If we always want to make love then some people will be jealous and they will want to fight. As much as we like to deny it the laws of the animal kingdom rule our lives. I have a philosophy for humankind, it is called "this way up". If you see this way up on a box it means it is fragile. If you want to shake it you will break it, but then all you have is pieces, surely it would be better to see the real object. There will always be winners and losers, there will always be high achiever and low achievers but we as people are all in it together so the low can help the high and the high can help the low and the natural balance will make the world a better place. There will be trouble, there is no thing as an absolute solution, the world is far to fluid, what was yesterday, will not be today and what today is will not be tomorrow. If the world thinks "this way up" it will be a better place. It is not about you, it is not about your neighbour, it is not about your next door neighbour, it is not even about the person at the other end of the street, it is not about the next town, it is not about the next county, it is not about the next country. We had the Great War, we had World War II, as Einstein said World War IV will be fought with bows and arrows. |
||
|
A positive few for people to live their lives Let us take culture. An Indian child growing up in an English household, with English traditions, morals and values, with European parents and siblings. That child will probably never see the world through the eyes of a Hindu, Tamil or Muslim, or as an Indian. The fact that the child has a different skin tone than the rest of the family will be academic, except if racism comes into the equation somewhere along the lines. That child will experience life as an Englishman. So what will other Indian people think of this child? I suspect a sense of betrayal, in the sense that the child has not taken up its cultural, religious and political roots. The child, however, will not understand that sentiment. Enter philosophy. Will history influence this hypothetical child? Geopolitics? Racism, economics? No, I believe that the child will feel quite at home in an English culture, but it will suddenly become conscious of some differences between itself and the siblings. Now the child will become philosophical and question certain issues, that was never before debated. This may lead to polarization towards some quality or the other, but it is a subjective decision. There are circumstances that influence this decision, such as the difference in skin color, in my example. The same applies to many other subjective things. Cultures can be changed. Politics constantly change. History is always being re-written. Economics change. I was asked once, by a true philosopher, how a bird knows when to fly to the other hemisphere in autumn. Like a true ornithologist, I quickly explained about biological changes in the body of the bird, external factors like the shortage of food, and the swarm instinct. Philosophy out the door, science in. It was a conversation stopper. Philosophy changes over the ages. The wisdom of the Great Greeks are not the same as modern wisdom. Epiphanies of the past has been delegated to a drawer in a dark corner somewhere, to make way for new ideas. To me, philosophy is not exact. I rather like science. But then, that is subjective- I am a trained operational, tactical and criminal analyst; analysts base their conclusions on facts, facts that can be tested time after time, and the conclusion will be the same. Like good science. Maybe my philosophy about philosophy is inherently jaded because of my personality, training and qualifications. Who knows- maybe a philosopher will be able to say. If he is objective...... |
||
|
because these days we need a compass far more than a map << "I have a philosophy for humankind, it is called "this way up". If you see this way up on a box it means it is fragile. If you want to shake it you will break it, but then all you have is pieces, surely it would be better to see the real object. There will always be winners and losers, there will always be high achiever and low achievers but we as people are all in it together so the low can help the high and the high can help the low and the natural balance will make the world a better place." >> With insights like that, Philosophy can stake its claim to being as essential for life as air or water or food or friends or home. Why? Because to go anywhere, to pursue any quest, to follow any craving, to pursue any mission, or to fulfill any Desire: it is not a map we need, but a compass. And this statement by Chris that opens this thread is a compass. A guide to moral action. And over time this compass grows ever more luminous with directional meaning. The burning issues of life are not aspects of a puzzle to be solved with a solution that is correct or incorrect: but with a moral answer, an answer that is right or that is wrong. Because Rene Descartes was wrong: it is NOT <I think, therefore I am>, but <I act, therefore I am.> As in chess, so in life: we are creatures of action who may be blessed with thought, not creatures of thought who have action as an option. |
||
|
well said!!! limitations.apod.nasa.gov |
||
|
this way up |
||
|
or |
||
|
Philosophy Mores change within societies and groups. What is acceptable for one group may not be acceptable to another- one of the most controversial subjects on mores is religion. It is a philosophical debate about one set of mores versus another; a set of beliefs compared to another set of beliefs. When tested, one arrives at a different set of answers, depending on the society being tested. Another case to prove the fickleness of philosophy, is politics. The same argument is put forward: test politics in different societies, and you will arrive at different answers. It is all a subjective opinion put forward, and the testing of the facts may or may not lead to different conclusions. In both these cases, what is interesting is that the same set of mores and guidelines evolved time after time in different societies and communities, although differences also evolved. These differences can be credited to several external factors, such as language, climate, topography, separation or isolation [from other communities and societies], and so on. Science, on the other hand, always arrives at the same conclusion when testing the same set of facts, and if it does not, the theory is flawed and must be reformulated. The discrepancies can be identified, and the formulation of the theory can be distilled until the plain truth is put forward. However, mores and philosophical guidelines are useful, if only to help keep a society in control. It cannot be confused with science, and therefor, a philosophical question cannot always be right or wrong. The answer can and will change over time and in different communities or societies. Philosophical ideas put forward by the Greek, Roman and Chinese philosophers were true in their day, but in modern time those same ideas have evolved to a whole new set of answers. Philosophy is not essential to life. Science is essential to life. A set of mores will evolve in any society sooner rather than later, because the human brain is hardwired to cooperate and function in a structure and hierarchy. Fortunately, some individuals are more suited to lead and guide, and others to follow and obey, and in different degrees and different areas. Without philosophy a community or society can and will survive, if only for the sake of survival, but without basic science, any community will be hard pressed to propagate and enter the future successfully. I will agree that philosophy may be the origin of ideas that lead to science, such as the longing of humans to take flight, but philosophy didn't invent heavier than air flight- science did. Look how long it took the Wright brothers to perfect their propeller and wing, and the trail and error that went into getting it scientifically correct. Sorry Shamash, I don't agree with you, but then, in this forum we can discuss the idea and philosophize until one can convince the other, or we can agree to disagree. That is what I like about philosophy and debate, and why philosophy is useful. |
||
|
the philosophic science of Étienne Bonnot de Condillac <<"Almost all the philosophy that I've read in my life is the authors' point of view, a subjective start to an idea. I've not seen anything that I can remember that is objective fact, and can be tested consistently.">> Read -- experience -- Condillac. |
||
|
the rigorous philosophic science of Edmund Husserl |
||
|
philosophy at philosophy seriously I done that as well. I guess that's why Aristotle is my favourite philosopher as he done the same. The thing that lead me to philosophy in the first place is that most of the major ideas in science, geography, physics, economics come from philosophers. Its kinda like getting to the root of the subjects. Philosophy can go too far though the abject side of it I do not agree with as I am a realist. Still philosophy can still be a creator of ideas for scientists to consider about time and space. While I cannot do the maths detail anymore as I switched my thought processes I can derive mathematical ideas and say what if.... |
||
|
tuning of maths way than he said and I still came up with right answer. So that day maths lost interest for me. The thing that annoyed me most is he refused to look my equations. It taught me a very valuable lesson no matter how smart someone is people like to stick to conventional understanding and will refute new ideas. |
||
|
because "a strong people need no leader" -Zapata <<"Philosophy is not essential to life. . . . Fortunately, some individuals are more suited to lead and guide, and others to follow and obey, and in different degrees and different areas. Without philosophy a community or society can and will survive. ">> As I write this, I hold in my hands a little red book published in Paris in 1793 during the French Revolution, a Revolution it helped bring about, toppling the aristocrats who thought like Marie Antoinette that "They were more suited to lead," and that the peasants could follow their "guidance" and, as the poster puts it, "obey" -! This little volume of brave philosophy daring to challenge the State and the entire social order --with its brave words set in type by hand on parchment pages, rushed to press so fast that a few of the letters have been printed upside down -- this book gave the French Revolutionaries their philosophic compass with its very first line a call to arms: "L’homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers" or, in translation: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." I possess this book -- printed in Paris during the very Revolution it brought about -- as a reminder of what the words of a simple philosopher can accomplish -- and how essential philosophy is -- to a community, and to a society, both of which this slim little volume by Jean-Jacques Rousseau inspired -- and created. By every measure this book of philosophy was essential to the liberty, equality, and fraternity of the French people -- and to our modern world. |
||
|
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Rene Descartes |
Log in 
