Philosophy of Religion

[fuzzyoctopus]

That's very nice poetry. (I don't mean that sarcastically at all, I do like it, and will use it probably someday.)

Ok. So tell me what about philosophy is satisfying to you?  It seems to me that I have always been taught philosophy is all about spending your life thinking and thinking and never coming to an answer.  Why spend your life in pursuit of something that has no answer.

Of course the tree is there when I'm not looking at it.  Yes, I understand the theory behind the idea that "if I'm not observing it, it's not there," but IT'S NOT TRUE.

[JP Dogberry]

How do you know it's there? You have no sensory perception of it! It makes sense, because when you turn around, it's there again.

Philosophy is a search for truth. I call myself "JamPaladin". The "Jam" comes from "systemjammer". I like to learn how systems work, gain full understanding of them, then use this understanding to exploit ad use the system to its best abillity. For example, learning how the bearocracies work in order to make the most money from the government, or figuring out how to get the most power from a computer.

Philosophy is a search for truth, and attempt to understand the greatest system of all. The universe. I mean, I want to be a Reality Hacker!

Besides, as Entropy will attest, thinking is what I do.  I spend hours every day doing nothing but thinking about stuff.  Who needs an answer? I think you need a good dose of Zen Buddhist thought - it's the journey not the destination and all that.

Which is a long winded way of saying I don't know, I just like it.

[fuzzyoctopus]

Because matter doesn't move or disappear when you're not looking at it.  You know it doesn't, even if you pretend to "question" the fact.  You're just playing along with the philosophical idea.

How could anyone ever sneak up on you if observation were everything?

Ok, if you like it, then that's good.  But it still perplexes me.  I like answers.  I like concrete answers even if they're not the right answers, or if there can be no "right" answer, I need closure.

[JP Dogberry]

But you can't answer the universe, it's too complex. Even if you choose to say that God created it all, there's still that question "What created God?".  The world is simply too complex to gain closure on.

Someone can sneak up on me because they perceive themselves. Also, note that I don't realise they exist until they've spoken or touched me? That's becasue until I gain thats ensoray perception of them, they don't exist.  It's not any more silly to think that than to think things stay where they are. There is absolutely no reason to belive things stay, so really saying that don't is probably less silly. I don't know matter stays, as I have no way to evidence to that fact.

[fuzzyoctopus]

Why on earth would I need to answer the universe?  Why should I be responsible for figuring out the impossible?  God knows how and why everything works, and if I don't, that's fine.

I don't suppose you'll accept the majority rules decision, where most people believe that things stay put when you turn your back, and that the majority is right.

Or, if you like, that the mass of the opinion of millions of people makes it true?

This is incredibly fascinating.  Do you mean that you actually and truly believe that the physical world is so unpredictable, and you're not just interested in it as an intellectual exercise but that you actually believe the world might work that way?

*ponders this*

[fuzzyoctopus]

I would just like to say that I'm sorry for saying we could kill all the philosophers, which I'll assume no one took literally.

I just find it very hard to believe that anyone could actually believe something like this.  I mean, sure you say you believe it, but in your heart you know when you close your eyes and sit down that the bed and the house are still there.  It's ridiculous to really believe otherwise.  Come on, you've got to be screwing with me.
Jam, are you maybe having a practical joke at my expense?

But then I can't understand clinical depression either, really, not having experienced it. Though I suppose that comparing philosphy to a mental disease is possibly not the best way to win friends.

[JP Dogberry]

Well, it is an intellectual exercise, but I don't discount it as a real fact. Look, I believe that God exists, yet I have no sensory perception of Him. Why then should I take anything else at face value? Reality is a Shared Hallucination - we all believe that things are the same, so we assume that to be the case. Perhaps the belief of all actually created it? I don't know.

Overall, let's just say I've played enough planescape and thought too hard to think of the physcial world as static. If I was the only person in the world tomorrow who belived people couldn't fly, they'd be flying, even if they wern't flying, because I'd be a fool and insane for thinking otherwise.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

eh, perception does not make the world. Sure, there has been some science that leads us to think that observation affects the observed, but not create it. Several problems with the idea in general though:

1) if something not observed does not exist, than it has no reason to re-exist in exactly the same format when you go back to observe it. If there is some sort of pattern or schema that causes it, than it still exists in some way.

2) you have no way of demonstrating either that any other person or thing senses or observes. Therefore, no one else exists unless you observe them.

3) what sort of perception counts? The perception of animals? What about micro-organisms? IF those, why not plantlife? At this point, everything is observed all the time anyway, so the idea becomes moot.



On another note, philosophy is not about "sitting around thinking of something that has no answer." It's taking something and figuring out what it is, what it's processes are, what sorts of evidence or questions are important to it, what it aims to achieve, what it's value is, etc. All of which are important questions to ask about almost any subject.

[fuzzyoctopus]

Reality is a Shared Hallucination - we all believe that things are the same, so we assume that to be the case. Perhaps the belief of all actually created it? I don't know.

I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor, and the coincidence of billions of minds spending thousands of years in a shared hallucination is complicated and improbable enough to completely rule it out.

On another note, philosophy is not about "sitting around thinking of something that has no answer." It's taking something and figuring out what it is, what it's processes are, what sorts of evidence or questions are important to it, what it aims to achieve, what it's value is, etc. All of which are important questions to ask about almost any subject.

What is it exactly that we're figuring out?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

actually, a proper phrasing of Occum's razor would state that the simplest explanation of the case is MOST LIKELY to be the case, not that it IS. On the other hand, Occum's razor is only good for establishing plausability, and the simplest explanation is often NOT the case, since all the facts are rarely, if ever known.

and JP, i'm sorry, but what you're saying about hallucinations and believing in flying doesn't make much sense. Not everyone shares a same, or often even a similar worldview, so that rules that out right away. Believing somethign has no power to make it so. Even a lot of people believing it. If everyone in the world but you believed people could fly, well, they'd call you a fool, but that wouldn't make it true that they flew.

I'd hesitate LONG AND HARD, like. for many many years, more years than you've been alive, before taking an invented physics system for a game as a guideline for reality.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

oh, and what we're trying to figure out depends on what you WANT to figure out. What do you want to philosophize on?

[fuzzyoctopus]

I want to philosophize on why philosophy is something I should care about.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

to start with, it's a useful tool for grasping the usefulness and value of other fields of knowledge.

The problem with telling you where to go for that is that most "introduction to philosophy" courses are about telling you what other people thought, not telling you how to start thinking about it yourself.

[fuzzyoctopus]

Yes, well, and I had the Introduction to Philosophy.  The most memorable part of it being when the prof brought in his guitar and sang the Monty Python song about the drunken philosophers.

Perhaps I am less opposed to casual (as opposed to formal) philosophy, especially when it doesn't involve trying to prove that things dont' exist.

[Entsuropi]

If i am along in a room, and facing away from a badly stacked pile of stuff, then nobody is observing that stack. Yet it can still topple and fall on me, even when i percieve it to be sturdy and safe. Therefore, not only can my perception be wrong (that the stack is safe) but things can exist outside of my perception (the stack had to exist to fall, and nobody was observing it at the time).

I, too, like solid facts. I may not understand the reasons behind them - physics is not a field i am likely to progress much in - but i still desire those facts to exist and apply. Fire is hot. There is a reason for this - some chemical reaction i believe - and what i think about the issue has no bearing on this. It's still hot even if i think it's going to make me turn green and fly.

Planescape and Mage : the ascension both posit the concept of belief altering reality. A philosophical concept. You would do well, however, to note the warning on the front inside cover of all Mage books (and indeed all White Wolf books) - 'This is a game. It is not real. The things described within do not apply to the real world, and should not be regarded as a way to live life. If you do believe that these things are real, then seek psyiacriatric help.' As much as a love the way the concept is explored within mage, and the gameplay it can create, that does not mean that i desire it to be true, or regard it as true.

Oh, and i'm not trying to be nasty to you here. Here, have a smiley