Forums > Off Topic > Theory of the Void
Indra was here (20755) on 6/9/2007 6:49 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Does anyone know the spesifics of any similar theory that matter (or something) can originate from nothing (or the void)? Thus negates the neccesity of an intellectual creator. The physics of this theory is somewhat blurry to me, since I thought about this once upon a time. Was wondering if there is any scientific theory that supports my philosophical hypothesis. Heard rumors, yet to confirm.
Not quite sure if it has anything to do with the theory of relativity. Amazing what a little weed can do.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 6/9/2007 9:08 PM · Permalink · Report
Amazing what a little weed can do.
Not really - this is well within the expected parameters of the effects of a little weed.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/10/2007 3:16 AM · Permalink · Report
Matter cannot originate from the void, because void is thinkable only as absence of matter in a certain space, therefore this word would lose any meaning if we imagine total absence of matter. Since the concept of time also assumes changes within the matter, a total absence of the matter (i.e. void) would annihilate all the processes of time, and is therefore impossible.
Also, the law of causality, which is perceived a priori by any intellect, requires presence of matter in space and time. If we assume that matter originated from a void, we'd also have to assume an act that caused such a change. Such an act would then de impossible to derive from a preceeding act (since all there was before was just void), which breaks the law of causality (assuming an action without a cause). Which means, once again, that such a thing is impossible.
In fact, the theory about the matter originating from void is very close to the idea of an intellectual creator (God). On the contrary, if we admit that the matter is eternal, the theory of intellectual creator is negated.
Just my 2 cents.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/10/2007 4:51 AM · Permalink · Report
The law of the conservation of matter states that matter can never be created nor destroyed; it can only change its form. To receive something, other matter must be sacrificed or work must be done in return. Regardless of perception/theoretical data, this is one of the primary laws of physics and it cannot be negated.
The Fabulous King (1332) on 6/10/2007 7:22 AM · Permalink · Report
So what's the score then? God - 1, Indra - 0?
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/10/2007 10:05 AM · Permalink · Report
No, it's Atheists 2 - Theists 0. The atheist team currently has two players: Matt and me. Indra is still hesitating about the team he should join ;)
Indra was here (20755) on 6/10/2007 11:46 AM · Permalink · Report
Neither team. Both Athiests and Theists suck. :)
I think this has to do with something a friend told me about. I think he majors in physics or something. Anyway, he said something odd that the latest development in identifying the smallest particles (smaller than protons and neutrons, after that smaller that, and after that still something smaller), it was discovered that there was nothing underneath that.
Don't know if void is the correct term, since we were talking in native tounge. Probably "nothingness", not as the opposite of full. Nothing in the context that even "nothing" does not exist.
Anyway I'm pretty sure I heard some theory that something can originate from nothing (physics). Not my field, at least can someone direct me to any known theory referring to such. (so I can look it up in wiki).
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/10/2007 5:09 PM · Permalink · Report
That's hardly a physical problem; it's a metaphysical one. Physics can only guide you to the threshold of transcendental knowledge. Beyond that, you'll have to think metaphysically. And if your mind hasn't been corrupted by incomprehensible Judaeo-Christian-Islamic myths, you'll come to this conclusion through pure observation: matter can have neither beginning nor end.
That's why Hinduism and Buddhism teach that samsara, i.e. the circle of births, is eternal. You can see that as a symbolic representation of endless matter.
Indra was here (20755) on 6/12/2007 12:53 PM · Permalink · Report
That's the point of this tricky theory, Oleg. Matter does have a beginning and an end. Also applies to anti-matter...an even more tricky process.
NatsFan (68) on 6/13/2007 7:38 PM · Permalink · Report
I personally don't think that atheists have a leg to stand on.
If matter cannot be created from nothing, then none of us really exist because matter had to start from somewhere. And don't say "the big bang" because you can't have an explosion from nothing.
That's why assert that there has to be some kind of non-physical being that can create matter, one whose existence can be asserted by the fact that spritual beings would undoubtedly operate outside of the law of conservation of matter.
We religious tend to call this non-physical being/entity/force/whatever God.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 6/13/2007 7:44 PM · Permalink · Report
We religious tend to call this non-physical being/entity/force/whatever God.
And then many of you go on to ascribe all sorts of other bizarre characteristics and properties to this initial motive force 8)
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 6/13/2007 8:43 PM · Permalink · Report
Would you consider force of nature a god? Something that doesn't have a will or mind as we understand it?
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/15/2007 12:28 AM · Permalink · Report
Then it is not a mind any more. Mind is a certain function of the brain, so if we assume God has a mind, he absolutely must have a brain, same way as anyone who is able to digest food absolutely must have a stomach. But if God has a brain, he falls under the same category as any other living being, and there must come a question who created this God with his brain and all the rest. If we continue like that, we must assume a never-ending chain of Gods creating each other, which is quite absurd, and unnecessary.
Another reason why theism doesn't work is because it assumes a certain cause (the creation) which was not preceeded by any other cause, and that is impossible.
But what really makes theism unacceptable is the condition of the world itself. Look at the world, at all those suffering living beings, who must kill and eat each other in order to survive, and you'll realize it is anything else but a creation by someone who had a mind of any kind. Rather, it is a product of a totally blind force.
Indra was here (20755) on 6/15/2007 7:40 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--] But if God has a brain, he falls under the same category as any other living being... [/Q --end Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]
Which unfortunately is the ultimate downfall of Theists everywhere. Religion simply has no idea who or what God is, in the context that God does exist. And if God does exist, Religion cannot prove what he/she/it wants/needs/does not want/does not need.
How can one assume a God loves, since love in itself is a creation of God. How can one assume that God hates, forgives, sees, hears, curses, since all of those are in itself creations of God.
How can one assume God is alive, since life is a creation of God. Is there no one with religion that realizes that everything in existence is a creation of God, thus existed after God not before God existed?
Of course not. Because faith is a subjective assumption of limited intelligence to perceive a possiblity. You cannot prove that your God is almightier than my God, which is a Pack of cigarettes.
Don't you find that extremely irritating?
Seriously. Isn't the one and true God supposed to be more than that......?
NatsFan (68) on 6/15/2007 7:59 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]Mind is a certain function of the brain [/Q --end Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--] How are you sure of that? How do you know that mind isn't a function of the soul?
I personally think that the chances of any atheists in this thread becoming thiests, or of any of the theists becoming atheists, is so remote that we should just hang the whole thing and start talking about video games instead. Has anyone here played the new Sam & Max? I thought it was great.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/16/2007 4:12 PM · Permalink · Report
This is the first time a philosophical discussion is about to turn into a discussion about games, and not vice versa ;)
No, I haven't played the new Sam&Max. There's no way for me to buy them :(
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/14/2007 3:05 AM · Permalink · Report
If matter cannot be created from nothing, then none of us really exist because matter had to start from somewhere.
Why?
Indra was here (20755) on 6/14/2007 12:26 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]If matter cannot be created from nothing, then none of us really exist because matter had to start from somewhere.
Why? [/Q --end Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]
The dude still believes in the fundamental rule that:
[1] Every creation must be created
[2] Something must come from something else
[3] No such thing as nothing, since it never happened
For newbie philosophy, this is fine. The problem is most persons do not comprehend the concept of "nothing". In philosophy, nothing is basically really-really nothing. Even nothing does not exist. The concept itself does not exist. Exist does not exist. So when we're talking about "God" in the beginning. The dude didn't exist, because he hasn't created himself yet.
Those 3 rules above are not a fundamental rule because there is a moment in time when those rules did not exist at all. So could something come from nothing? Why not. Philosophically speaking, if we theorize about it, its still a possiblity. Does God exist? If we theorize about it, its still a possiblity. Does God not exist? If we theorize about it, its still a possiblity.
Faith: Subjective assumptions based on what other people said.
Philosophy: Subjective assumptions through logical analysis based on what other people said
Fact: Reality in your face.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/10/2007 10:04 AM · Permalink · Report
That's pretty much my point :)
General Error (4329) on 6/11/2007 10:50 AM · Permalink · Report
The Nullth Book of Error puts it like this:
Harken the Wisdom of the Eternal Weed!
In the Beginning, there was The Void. True, utter, complete, total, unthinkable, unspeakable, un-everything Void. Then, The Void got bored and started fingering itself, begetting the First Something. And they had much fun together.
And as 0 and 1 allow computers to do just about anything, Void and Something got together to create all those beautiful and frustrating things that together make up what we call The World.
Indra was here (20755) on 6/12/2007 12:58 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Zovni wrote--]One of the fundamental issues in philosophy: Why is there something instead of nothing? Lots of heavy reading there... you're better off with whatever answer the weed gives you. [/Q --end Zovni wrote--]
I'll give you a more fundamental issue. The fact that why there is something instead of nothing is less important that the fact that why have we been given the capability through evolution to ask such a question in the first place.
Our capability to reason sometimes appears illogical to me.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/12/2007 4:36 PM · Permalink · Report
That's a very good question you're posing here, and the answer is: we have the capability to ask questions because our goal as human beings is to doubt this existence and eventually to disrupt ourselves from it.
A highly developed brain is needed for that: animals are incapable of achieving this status, because they are still bound by their instincts too much. Even most human beings are unable to do that; they continue existing like animals.
If you begin to see our existence as a huge interrogation sign, you're on the right way. The first step towards enlightenment is to see our existence as questionable, or better to say, as suffering.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 6/12/2007 5:02 PM · Permalink · Report
My view is much less mysterious.
Intelligence has been a good survival tactic so evolution has encouraged it. Part of intelligence is the ability to reason, another is deduction. I.e. because humans have evolved a way to think things and events that they can't directly see ("if I sharpen this piece of rock I can use it to cut") it has been nothing more than inevitable that at some point humans started to ask existential questions. Of course this also requires the most amazing of our attributes: that of having a self. Some animls are aware of themselves in some sense, but none are so far in realising their indivuality as we humans.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/12/2007 5:06 PM · Permalink · Report
Yes, that's the physical explanation, but we also need a metaphysical one. Not one that says how, but one that says why. "How" is the question physics answer, but only metaphysics can answer the "why". No science is able to do that, that's where philosophy comes into play.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 6/12/2007 5:18 PM · Permalink · Report
I think the whole question is wrong. "Why have we been given this ability". It has not been given. It has evolved, like a hump to a camel. Asking that very same question about the hump would look a bit funny (well, unless of course you are a creationist)...
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/12/2007 5:27 PM · Permalink · Report
No, that's not what I mean... I didn't mean we were "given" this ability. I do believe that it has evolved, just as you say. I think the creation theory is absurd anyway. So we admit that this ability has evolved... but why? Why did it happen? There must be some deeper, metaphysical meaning in this. This meaning is what I was trying to refer to.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 6/12/2007 6:55 PM · Permalink · Report
And what I was trying to say is there is no deeper meaning any more than there is a deeper meaning camels have a hump.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/13/2007 12:24 AM · Permalink · Report
Actually, there is also meaning in camels having humps, but... do you really think human intellect has about as much significance as a camel hump? Doesn't that seem illogical to you?
Indra was here (20755) on 6/14/2007 12:40 PM · Permalink · Report
No, I understand Marko' point of view. Maybe Marko missed something from Oleg's explantion.
Yes, intelligence is from evolution. We accept that as the basic theory from now. Disclaiming all other theories about God, Alien Abduction and that we are descendants of the Simpsons.
Intelligence evolved from our need to adapt and survive. Why humans are the only species (from thousands of species available) that evolved in this was is somewhat a mystery.
Note: The Alien Abduction Laboratory experiment theory becomes interesting from this point on. :)
The thing is if intellegence was ONLY a from of adapting and surviving the elements. The only questions we would ask is, 'How do I make this blade sharper'. Questions like "Why do I think, Why do I exist, Why does his penis have a triangular shape" does not aligned with our need to survive and exist. In fact, if when we were cavemen, any dude asking "why" instead of "how, might most likely become the dinner of a sabretooth tiger, since he didn't evolve his survival skills fast enough.
The presence "Why" is questionable. Although we must also open the possiblity that the "importance" of why probably has no more meaning that a camels hump (which is used to store food for long periods of time). But we must also open the possiblity, what IF it has more meaning? What if the philosophers of all time that 'detected something obviously wrong with existence' indeed all those questions lead somewhere.
Or not.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 6/17/2007 2:46 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]The thing is if intellegence was ONLY a from of adapting and surviving the elements. The only questions we would ask is, 'How do I make this blade sharper'. Questions like "Why do I think, Why do I exist, Why does his penis have a triangular shape" does not aligned with our need to survive and exist. In fact, if when we were cavemen, any dude asking "why" instead of "how, might most likely become the dinner of a sabretooth tiger, since he didn't evolve his survival skills fast enough.[/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] No, you didn't quite get what I was saying.
To want to sharpen the knife the caveman (well, actually humans were living in the African plains at that time, I think) needs to be able to comprehend why he would want the blade to be sharper. He needs to have the ability to think forward. And forward-thinking is all about imagination, of imagining things that are not real at the moment. It's not a giant leap after that to start wondering what happens to dead people, of which they saw plenty of, after they die. It's again just about imaging something that is not real.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/13/2007 12:37 AM · Permalink · Report
There is a deeper meaning in everything, especially in such unusual things like human intellect. It's not a matter of knowledge, rather a matter of observation and consequent conclusions, but also of belief.
I'm not trying to fit the world to a certain theory. Rather, I try to fit a theory to the world. I go through different theories and then find the one that explains the world in the most satisfactory way. And for me, materialism is as unsatisfactory as theism. The difference between them is that while theism is an absurd teaching, materialism still contains objective truth. But it simply lists the phenomena of the world without explaining them. That's why I don't think it deserves to be called a philosophical teaching. It's a sxience, and as such, should stop pretending to compete with real philsophy. At least theism tries to give some metaphysical explanation, no matter how poor it is.
The problem is that people in the West still see the problem the same way as 300 years ago: either theism or materialism, nothing between. Either believe in impossible, illogical things, or say nothing has a meaning, everything is just chemistry. It is as if Schopenhauer never existed, and his books were never published.
jorgeabe (13) on 6/13/2007 5:08 AM · Permalink · Report
I thought you are never going to mention to Schopenhauer, Oleg ;) By the way, in Argentina his books are so unpopular that I have to buy them in Spain. Even there, I have had to wait 1 year for a reprint of "The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics". I used to be a complete scentist, but now I'm "between", in armony with both visions! :) The christianity that taught me in my childhood couldn't sustain versus the science in my youth, and much less in front of the powerful ideas of that German Philosopher in my adulthood. If you could understand to Schopenhauer, you could really understand ALL Theories of the Void, and even to criticize them, and not only to be a simple fan or a cheated and impressed spectator of new (and old ones) ideas and theories.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/13/2007 8:35 AM · Permalink · Report
Jorge! Nice to see you again! :-))
We should organize a Schopenhauer fan club :)
Indra was here (20755) on 6/14/2007 12:42 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Woohoo. Still have no idea who Schopenhauer is. Must be the only dude that does not read books on philosophy.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/14/2007 5:09 PM · Permalink · Report
Arthur Schopenhauer was a German philosopher of early 19th century. His philosophical system is the final result of the entire philosophical thinking of the West, since he brings together such different systems as that of Platon and Kant.
Schopenhauer follows Kant in his separation of the world as phenomenon (representation), the way we perceive it, and the "thing in itself", the way the world truly is. But he goes further than Kant, proclaiming the "thing in itself" as the will to life, which is the core of every living being and of every process in the world (such as planetary movements, gravity, etc.). In the living being, the will manifests itself as the instincts: hunger, survival instinct, sexual drive. Schopenhauer equates sexual drive to the creation of the world, since in his philosophy the whole world is a manifestation of the will.
This way, the creation of the world is in the strictest sense our own act. The individual "I" is nothing but a temporary subject in which the will is "reincarnated". Our true essence is the will, and as such, it has only one desire, to continue exist as endless forms of matter in the world.
Human intellect is a "side effect" of the will, which grows tired of its own existence, sees the nothingness of all its desires, and decides to annihilate itself. Hence the moral meaning of the world lies in the ability of the human intellect to negate its own essence, the will.
Anyone halfway familiar with Asian culture will of course notice the striking similarity between Schopenauer's philosophy and Buddhism. Even more astounding is the fact than when Schopenhauer completed the first edition of his main work, "The World as Will and Representation", he did not know anything about Buddhism.
What Schopenhauer provides is an amazingly refined, balanced, and philosophically impeccable commentary to Buddhism, which is at the same time the quintessence of Western philosophical tradition.
Schopenhauer himself proudly notes in the later editions of his work that his system does not contradict the teachings of the most noble religions of mankind, Hinduism and Buddhism, and is also identical in essence to any mysticism, including the one within Christianity.
Okay... I hope that helps. But as Schopenhauer himself writes, "I require that anyone who is interested in my philosophy reads my books, not just a few paragraphs about me in a philosophy textbook". I can only add that Schopenhauer is a superb writer, and "The World as Will and Representation" is a very emotional book that has nothing of the excessive complexity of some philosophers. No summary of his philosophy can replace the actual reading. So I advise everyone who cares for the meaning of this world and our life to get his book, because philosophy simply doesn't get any better than this.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 6/13/2007 8:28 AM · Permalink · Report
This has nothing to do with materialism. It has to do with a certain mr Darwin and his theory. There is a very good "why" in that one if you read it.
I don't know how to explain this any more than I have: evolution not only explains how and also why.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/13/2007 10:44 AM · Permalink · Report
Well, then this "why" doesn't satisfy me. When I ask "why", I require an answer that will have something to do with ethics, not just a description of a physical process.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 6/13/2007 11:11 AM · Permalink · Report
Well, I'm perfectly happy to accept stuff like why water runs downhill without a metaphysical explanation.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/13/2007 11:14 AM · Permalink · Report
That's because we don't care for the water, but we do care for the meaning of our life... that's why we need a satisfying answer.
Maw (832) on 6/13/2007 11:38 AM · Permalink · Report
I decided ages ago that these kinds of discussions are pointless. We just don't have the tools to discover the answers...if there are any answers. In metaphysics you can pull a theory out of thin air and it will be just as valid as anything 3000 years of philosophy has produced. Why let it bother you?
Also, people who spend too much time pondering the meaning of life invariably join suicide cults. It's a scientific fact.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 6/13/2007 7:09 PM · Permalink · Report
Also, people who spend too much time pondering the meaning of life invariably join suicide cults. It's a scientific fact.
After all, most of the people who have done so throughout history are now dead today 8)
Indra was here (20755) on 6/14/2007 12:47 PM · Permalink · Report
Why is it important?
Hard. Then the question of "Why me?" can no longer be accepted with the answer of "Why not'.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/14/2007 4:45 PM · Permalink · Report
Very well said, Indra.
jorgeabe (13) on 6/13/2007 9:19 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Water runs downhill because the force of gravity. Now, the question for metaphysics is, why this force?, why does it exist in that way? Physics only explains when they appear, and establishes rules, but not WHY. The same for all known fundamental forces of universe. And ALL of these mysterious forces guide our acts.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/14/2007 3:07 AM · Permalink · Report
Exactly. Force of gravity is a phenomenon that we can perceive. But what is behind it? What causes it to exist? Why is there gravity? This is the kind of question physics cannot answer.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/18/2007 4:40 AM · Permalink · Report
Exactly. Force of gravity is a phenomenon that we can perceive. But what is behind it? What causes it to exist? Why is there gravity? This is the kind of question physics cannot answer.
And neither will metaphysical discussion. That's why I've avoided this discussion for so long. You can spend years brooding over books and debating others, but you will never turn up a theory that can be proven or observed. So in a sense, any theory that you come up with will be just valid as the Judeo-Christian explanation of "God did it". When I hear someone say that something happened because of a deeper purpose, this is pretty much equivalent to saying that God wanted it to happen. Both are just arbitrary, non-existant objects that can be used to explain things.
Sure, we don't know what the force behind gravity is. We don't know what happened before the universe started. There are TONS of unexplainable phenomenon in physics and science. But this doesn't automatically mean that there is some deeper meaning behind everything. That;s just as bad as looking to God for all of your answers.
The universe does not have any meaning, and I find that a satisfying answer. Its logical and it makes sense. Personally I think that anyone who keeps looking for deeper meanings may just be in denial, or is just confused.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/18/2007 5:27 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
You can spend years brooding over books and debating others, but you will never turn up a theory that can be proven or observed. So in a sense, any theory that you come up with will be just valid as the Judeo-Christian explanation of "God did it". When I hear someone say that something happened because of a deeper purpose, this is pretty much equivalent to saying that God wanted it to happen.
So you just ignore thousands of years of religious and philosophical thought. You ignore the natural yearning of the human being for the metaphysical, his desire for an explanation. No, it's not that simple. We cannot just disregard everything that has been said by wise people of different cultures about the meaning of the world. We'd rather listen to them carefully and try to find the truth beneath all their ideas and theories. But to think that all this development of human thought was just as valid as the "God did it" explanation is a big mistake.
NatsFan (68) on 6/18/2007 11:09 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]But to think that all this development of human thought was just as valid as the "God did it" explanation is a big mistake. [/Q --end Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--] Except for all of those who do think that "God did it."
Like me.
jorgeabe (13) on 6/19/2007 2:06 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--] So you just ignore thousands of years of religious and philosophical thought. You ignore the natural yearning of the human being for the metaphysical, his desire for an explanation. No, it's not that simple. We cannot just disregard everything that has been said by wise people of different cultures about the meaning of the world. We'd rather listen to them carefully and try to find the truth beneath all their ideas and theories. [/Q --end Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]
Exactly what I think. The natural need of humans for exlanations of this kind is also a manifestation of the same forces that makes water to run downhill. The human being simply can't resist the temptation of the truth: a god, nothing, a philosophical theory.
As Oleg says, we can't ignore this historical behavior. In fact all people who is participating in this forum has had that need, even when they believe in "nothing".
The human needs and acts hide a lot of answers. If we see a pair of particles interacting by electric, magnetic and gravity forces, the meaning of that forces maybe isn't very clear. However, a super complex bunch of the same particles interacting by the same forces has evolved to what we call "human"; the meaning, the truth, the sense, the goal is more refined. Open your eyes and mind, abandon a while those imposed beliefs (a little while), and try to "understand" the world in the way the brain works. The raw material enters by the senses of perception, and the ideas and thoughts originate from inside with that material. Don't be afraid of what you get.
NatsFan (68) on 6/18/2007 11:11 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--]Personally I think that anyone who keeps looking for deeper meanings may just be in denial, or is just confused. [/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--] I've already found deeper meaning, and it's brought me nothing but happiness. Think about that.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/18/2007 3:01 PM · Permalink · Report
It's funny how I stand between you and Matt :)
I agree with you that we need the deeper meaning, and that it brings happiness. Both you and I think that religion is important for mankind.
On the other hand, I agree with Matt that there's no God, at least not in such a way as Western religious tradition describes him.
It's so typical for the West... either Christianity, or materialism. Nothing between.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 6/18/2007 5:23 PM · Permalink · Report
I'm agnostic. I'm not saying that there possibly can't be some sort of god or gods, but unless they let me know there is no evidence they exist either.
There is meaningful philosophy that can come to some conclusions like Descarte did, and then there is meaningless, which will never be able to create anything I think is worth the effort. Just like Matt said, wondering the meaning of it all falls pretty firmly in the second category. It's something to talk with your friends after a bottle of wine when you start getting all emotional but apart from that I can't see the point. It's just as valid to say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it than any other metaphysical explanation.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 6/19/2007 8:10 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start NatsFan wrote--]You got the "Flying spaghetti monster" from South Park, didn't you? ;)[/Q --end NatsFan wrote--] Nope. I came across it when I read about the totally ridiculous "Intelligent Design" thingy that some people in the US are using as a red herring to push religious (Christian, to be more precise) teaching to schools.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/19/2007 1:58 AM · Permalink · Report
I'm really sorry to hear that all metaphysicals systems make as much sense to you as a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was an incomparable pleasure for me to go through religious and philosophical systems, discovering the truth piece by piece... it's exciting, and it brought harmony into my life.
I honestly can't imagine how would I live without the support from religion and philosophy. It makes life so much richer, safer, and more interesting.
I hope you'll change your mind some day when you stumble across a philosophy that really does make sense to you.
And why is it always like that when I talk to Western people: either theism or agnosticism? Why do Western atheists reject all metaphysics and all religious ideas together with God?
God is not a requirement for religion or metaphysics, he is just one of the products.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/19/2007 5:23 AM · Permalink · Report
So you just ignore thousands of years of religious and philosophical thought. You ignore the natural yearning of the human being for the metaphysical, his desire for an explanation. No, it's not that simple. We cannot just disregard everything that has been said by wise people of different cultures about the meaning of the world. We'd rather listen to them carefully and try to find the truth beneath all their ideas and theories. But to think that all this development of human thought was just as valid as the "God did it" explanation is a big mistake.
Oleg, there is a HUGE difference from what people want and what reality is. Thousand and thousands of people have aimlessly searched for what they consider meaning in their lives. Just because people yearn for something, there is absolutely no proof that it actually exists. Look at God. Millions upon millions of people search for and worship God. They look to him as some sort of hope and beacon of light. Yet here you and me are, flatly stating that they are all wrong. Just because thousands of people search for something, is NO indication that that something is actually there to be found.
The reason Westerners don't like metaphysicality is because its a lot of bullshit. God is a metaphysical concept. He connot be proven, and He cannot be seen. Any other metaphysical concept is just as much bullshit. I could just as easily say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deeper meaning behind life. And here you are, claiming that Schopenhauer has found the metaphysical purpose to life. But the only thing allowing you to believe such concepts are your own will and your own suspension of disbelief. Christians have a word for this. They call it faith.
I will state this as plainly as I possibly can: if you don't believe in God, yet believe in metaphysical banter, then you are hypocrite. You condemn Christians for believing in a concept with no proof, yet you turn around and put all your faith into the very same concept which you condemn. You put faith into a concept which could never be proven nor could it be observed and expect that it could hold up any better than the concept of God in a debate.
At some point you just have to realize that the universe is a cold and unfeeling bitch. At some point you have to realize that human life is here without purpose and came to be by chance. Searching for meaning where there is none is just one thing: denial. Sure you could read about all the theories in the world, but what will that do? Finding comfort in these improvable theories is just as sad as trying to desperately find comfort in God.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/19/2007 11:18 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--]The reason Westerners don't like metaphysicality is because its a lot of bullshit.[/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--] So with one stroke of a pen, Matt Neueboom dismisses 6000 years of human thought. Don't you see yourself how ridiculous it is? Don't you think that philosophers at least deserves to be heard? Sorry, but what you say is really too arrogant. It's okay that you aren't interested in metaphysics, but you can't just say it's bullshit. At the very least, before saying that, you ought to be acquainted with all major metaphysical systems. You cannot pass such a generalizing judgment on something you aren't familiar enough with.
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--]And here you are, claiming that Schopenhauer has found the metaphysical purpose to life. But the only thing allowing you to believe such concepts are your own will and your own suspension of disbelief. Christians have a word for this. They call it faith.[/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--] You listen to music, you watch movies, you play games. You choose what you like and what you dislike. I read philosophical books and felt that I like Schopenhauer. What does it have to do with faith? It's a matter of personal sympathy and nothing else. I can understand if you don't like Schopenhauer, but it's exactly the same as when you dislike a game I like, or vice versa.
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--]I will state this as plainly as I possibly can: if you don't believe in God, yet believe in metaphysical banter, then you are hypocrite. .[/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--] I will state this as plainly as I possibly can: all you know about religion and metaphysics is what has been achieved within the limits of Christianity. You have no idea about the religions and philosophical thought of the East, and you obviously never even heard about atheist religions and atheist metaphysics. You should first get acquainted with the subject, because currently you are in no position to argue, let alone call people hypocrites.
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--]At some point you just have to realize that the universe is a cold and unfeeling bitch. At some point you have to realize that human life is here without purpose and came to be by chance. Searching for meaning where there is none is just one thing: denial. Sure you could read about all the theories in the world, but what will that do? Finding comfort in these improvable theories is just as sad as trying to desperately find comfort in God.[/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--] That's your opinion, I feel sorry for you, but you have to understand that your opinion is not yet universal truth. You think this way, somebody else that way. You gotta respect that.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 6/19/2007 8:09 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]I will state this as plainly as I possibly can: all you know about religion and metaphysics is what has been achieved within the limits of Christianity. You have no idea about the religions and philosophical thought of the East, and you obviously never even heard about atheist religions and atheist metaphysics. You should first get acquainted with the subject, because currently you are in no position to argue, let alone call people hypocrites.[/Q --end Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--] That sounds awfully much like "you haven't read the Bible so you can't say Christianity isn't for real!"
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/20/2007 2:30 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] That sounds awfully much like "you haven't read the Bible so you can't say Christianity isn't for real!"[/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] And what is exactly wrong with this argument? I agree that if someone hasn't even read the Bible, he is no position to argue about Christianity. It's exactly like saying that a certaion game is bad, basing your opinion on reviews and screenshots, without actually having played this game before.
Knowledge of the topic is the first requirement for any discussion, don't you think?
NatsFan (68) on 6/19/2007 12:13 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--]At some point you have to realize that human life is here without purpose and came to be by chance.[/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--] That's another thing I don't get, random evolution. Before you start to point and laugh at the guy who believes in creationism, and that all humans were created only a few days after the earth was formed, let me just say that I don't. Creationism doesn't make sense because we have scientifically proved that the earth didn't happen that way. I believe that evolution was the way that God created life, not the reason that it exists. The 7 days of life's creation was undoubtedly a metaphor designed for people that wouldn't be able to comprehend the way it actually happened. What makes even less sense to me than pure creationism is random evolution. It doesn't explain how or why organic life started, and it just doesn't make sense how something as complex as the eyeball or reproductive system could have evolved by chance.
To put it shortly, I'm a major believer in intelligent design.
As for what you said about human life being without purpose, if we are here without a purpose, then why do almost all humans have a built in desire to find their purpose? I think that we have both our curiosity and ability to think about the nature of the universe and life for a reason.
The Fabulous King (1332) on 6/19/2007 1:39 PM · Permalink · Report
Um... isn`t it more useful to ponder on and find the truths for the way one should live his/her life and how should he/she treat other sentinent beings than ponder on how the world was created? World creation kind of talks get too overtly complicated for their own good and resolve nothing. Human heart and mind are a lot more interesting.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/19/2007 4:34 PM · Permalink · Report
A truly good metaphysical system must also be an ethical system. Buddhism is an example. Try to separate its metaphysics from its ethics: you won't be able to. There is the law of causality, and the concept of birth cycles; this automatically leads to ethics. If you accept the Buddhist metaphysics, you have no choice but to accept its ethics as well.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/19/2007 1:48 PM · Permalink · Report
So with one stroke of a pen, Matt Neueboom dismisses 6000 years of human thought. Don't you see yourself how ridiculous it is? Don't you think that philosophers at least deserves to be heard? Sorry, but what you say is really too arrogant. It's okay that you aren't interested in metaphysics, but you can't just say it's bullshit. At the very least, before saying that, you ought to be acquainted with all major metaphysical systems. You cannot pass such a generalizing judgment on something you aren't familiar enough with.
But Oleg, me and you do this almost every single serious discussion we're in. We say that Christianity is false, and by this simple statement me and you both dismiss 2000 years of of human and religious development. I have high respect for the thinkers of the past, but just because they were some of the best thinkers of their time does not make them untouchable. They were still human, and they are not all-knowing. People make mistakes, even people like Kant, Lao Tse, and Schopenhauer. Just because they say something, does not make it gospel. They were just as human as you and I.
I apologize for all of the negative feedback, but every time I hear the phrase "there must be some purpose because all humans are given insight and curiosity about this world", I want to strangle the closest living thing. Humans created purpose and meaning themselves. Humans are just naturally curious people, and need to find meaning within their life. Most people go to God for comfort and meaning. Some people seek to fill their time with meaningful charity. But just because a human searches for something, does not necessarily mean its there. Saying that humans have some deeper purpose is just as silly as saying "God gave us all a meaning in our lives." It's the same thing, you are just attributing it to a different cause.
I guess the point I'm truly trying to make about metaphysics here is that the problem with it is that it cannot be proven. When you say that something happened because of a deeper significance, its just as silly as saying "God did it." Nothing can be proven, and it just matters if you put enough personal sympathy into either arbitrary object.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/19/2007 4:47 PM · Permalink · Report
But Oleg, me and you do this almost every single serious discussion we're in. We say that Christianity is false, and by this simple statement me and you both dismiss 2000 years of of human and religious development.
Well, that's not the same as saying "all metaphysics is bullshit", is it? Dismissing only one system is not the same as dismissing the whole thing.
Disliking Half-Life is not the same as saying that all games are crap :)
Besides, I don't think that Christianity is false from top to bottom. I rather think it's messed up and incoherent, but it has nevertheless some great ideas.
I have high respect for the thinkers of the past, but just because they were some of the best thinkers of their time does not make them untouchable. They were still human, and they are not all-knowing. People make mistakes, even people like Kant, Lao Tse, and Schopenhauer. Just because they say something, does not make it gospel. They were just as human as you and I.
I never said they weren't. And feel free to dislike and to ridicule them, that's not my problem. The only thing I can't accept is contempt to philosophy as a whole.
Humans created purpose and meaning themselves. Humans are just naturally curious people, and need to find meaning within their life. Most people go to God for comfort and meaning. Some people seek to fill their time with meaningful charity. But just because a human searches for something, does not necessarily mean its there. Saying that humans have some deeper purpose is just as silly as saying "God gave us all a meaning in our lives." It's the same thing, you are just attributing it to a different cause.
That's what you think, but other people believe that there is a purpose, and this belief is as valid as yours.
I guess the point I'm truly trying to make about metaphysics here is that the problem with it is that it cannot be proven.
But neither can your statement that everything has no purpose. That's also a kind of philosophy. You think that's the way things are, but there's no way you can prove it. The only thing you can do is to bring arguments against this way of thinking. But those who believe that there is a higher purpose will surely counter those arguments with their own. It's just a matter of personal feeling and conviction, in both cases.
chirinea (47495) on 6/19/2007 2:34 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start NatsFan wrote--]...random evolution. It doesn't explain how or why organic life started [/Q --end NatsFan wrote--] I guess you're aware that evolution is not concerned with "how life started", right? People keep confusing evolution with abiogenesis, and that's simply wrong. If you say you believe that evolution is the way God created life, you have a false conception of evolution, 'cause evolution deals with how life evolved, not how it was created.
[Q --start NatsFan wrote--]...and it just doesn't make sense how something as complex as the eyeball or reproductive system could have evolved by chance. [/Q --end NatsFan wrote--] I guess you also already read about it, and you know how evolutionists explain such a thing. Earlier you said that you believe that evolution is the way God created life. If by that you meant you believe that evolution is real, but God's behind it, then you should also accept some things like the possibility of eye's evolution.
Anyway, I'm not here to promote a creationism vs. evolutionism debate, I was just trying to point some common mistakes in that matter. For anyone interested, theres this particular site, The TalkOrigins Archive, which has lots and lots of reading on the creation/evolution controversy.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/19/2007 3:05 PM · Permalink · Report
I a big fan of Wasteland of Wonders, which unfortunately looks down right now (don't know if that's permanent or not).
But yea, we're not here to promote creationism vs. evolution debate. Been there done that, it just gets tiring after oh so long...
The Fabulous King (1332) on 6/19/2007 11:49 PM · Permalink · Report
I love Gabriel Knight. Just got the cd version for Sins of Fathers. Popped it in, installed it, then heard the music. Then I cried. The sounds of my childhood.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/20/2007 2:33 AM · Permalink · Report
You can't prove it! It's like saying that Flying Spaghetti Monster is teh game! Admit that you just blindly follow your faith, or give me deep, meaningful, metaphysical explanation about why Gabriel Knight is teh game!
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/20/2007 3:11 AM · Permalink · Report
Shouldn't we just have a sub-site MobyPhilosophy or something like that? We could make the entries "God", "Christianity", "Evolution", "Schopenhauer", and many others, and write reviews for them :)
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/20/2007 2:32 AM · Permalink · Report
Gabriel Knight rules.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/20/2007 3:42 AM · Permalink · Report
I guess we would end up getting some one-line reviews saying just "this is bullshit". =P (Sorry Matt, I'd lose a friend, but not a joke =D).
It's cool, I deserve it. I promise I won't pull a D Michael on you guys. ;-D
Some stuff just gets me fired up.
chirinea (47495) on 6/20/2007 3:53 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--] Some stuff just gets me fired up. [/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--] I know how you feel, and I feel somewhat like you about such subjects. You just don't know how often I read some discussions in our forums and my firgers get itchy. But I don't know, I think again and give up on taking all the time to type what I want to say. I don't know, I guess I'm getting old... =)
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/20/2007 5:34 AM · Permalink · Report
Oh, I see, so the nice, friendly, polite Gui is nothing but a disguise, right? That's just what I thought. I mean, think of it: who can possibly be as nice as Gui among people like me, Zovni, Dr. von Katze, Drunken Irishman, Indra and Matt? It's a living hell on earth, alternating between posts about morals in GTA, flame wars, cynical article quoting, analysis of dialogues in RPGs, diary of a sex-starved man, and stating that all metaphysics is bullshit. Who can remain sane in such a society? It's obvious Gui was just pretending. There is a wild, uncontrolled beast behind the friendly facade :)~
chirinea (47495) on 6/20/2007 6:09 AM · Permalink · Report
What Oleg? DO YOU THINK I'M A PIECE OF SHIT? =P
Hah, I guess you misunderstood me, Oleg. When I said that my fingers "get itchy", I'm not saying that I want to curse everything and everyone. It was more a way of saying that most of times I have lots of things I'd like to say, but I avoid replying, even if I'd probably be polite as I usually am, just because I'm becoming more and more lazy. You know, I often think I can't express myself very well in English, and that sometimes puts me away from typing everything I think about so many interesting subjects that are brought up here in our forums.
I'm not pretending or disguising myself, absolutely! Heh, in my family, I'm the next-longest tempered one (my mom comes first, after all, she had to deal with three always-stressed men - my brothers and father - and me). Obviously I lose my mind, but that's pretty rare (unless we're talking about women, then I lose it more often =P).
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 6/20/2007 3:54 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Matt Neuteboom wrote--]I won't pull a D Michael on you guys. ;-D[/Q --end Matt Neuteboom wrote--] Good thing I wasn't drinking anything or I'd have spilled it...
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/25/2007 3:18 PM · Permalink · Report
You are not right, Zovni. He didn't say he believed in intelligent design theory because the Bible says so. He said he believed in it because, in his opinion, complex things such as various organs etc. couldn't have just evolved and must have been created (designed) by another intelligence.
This is a far cry from the argumentation "The Bible says so".
Even so, the argumentation is not strong enough to back the theory, but that's beside the point.
Zovni (10504) on 6/25/2007 4:04 PM · Permalink · Report
In case you haven't heard Oleg, Intelligent Design is a load of bull spawned in the US designed to get creationism in schools under the guise of a pseudo-science. Avoiding mention of the bible is just diplomacy at work, regardless of whether you think god, Yoda or Tom Cruise created (sorry, "designed") life.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/25/2007 4:35 PM · Permalink · Report
Yeah, I know about that, and the way it is presented in the US, it surely is a load of bull, but it doesn't change the fact that followers of this theory still back it with arguments regardless of the Bible... Atheists should come up with solid counter-argumentation instead of just mocking the creationists.
Zovni (10504) on 6/25/2007 4:44 PM · Permalink · Report
Oleg go back to the little image I posted and replace "the bible says it" with whatever imaginary friend you want and there you have the "arguments" you want me to shoot down. Heck its not even a theory... and you know what? I'm not going to get into this, I'll let Penn & Teller do it for me.
chirinea (47495) on 6/25/2007 5:32 PM · Permalink · Report
Here Zovni, let me try to help you explain your point with a shorter video.
DJP Mom (11333) on 6/25/2007 10:24 PM · Permalink · Report
I've never understood why "intelligent design" believers say complex things could only have been designed. Why couldn't they have evolved? And what about the stupid stuff that goes with it, like breasts on men - was that an intelligent design error? Makes me mad!
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/26/2007 2:46 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start DJP Mom wrote--]And what about the stupid stuff that goes with it, like breasts on men - was that an intelligent design error? [/Q --end DJP Mom wrote--] Such examples are countless. Mole has eyes that cannot see. Whale has huge teeth that don't let him bite anything. And so on, and so on. It's enough to look closer at the world to see how incompetent its creator is. In fact, the world is constructed in such a way that it is barely able to exist, and all the living creatures are extremely fragile and are doomed to fight for survival in a meaningless struggle, dying in masses every second. It is so absurd to assume that this ridiculous world was created by somebody's superior mind. Even a 5-year-old kid would do better in the position of God.
Indra was here (20755) on 6/26/2007 5:26 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--] It is so absurd to assume that this ridiculous world was created by somebody's superior mind. Even a 5-year-old kid would do better in the position of God. [/Q --end Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]
Actually God IS a 5 year old kid. I somewhat realized that when I remembered that I liked drawing monsters when I was in kindergarten.
Hmm, kinda reminded me of the dinosaurs. Odd coincidence.
Me, for personal reasons. I'd prefer there is a creator. Then I'd have a hell of a good reason to do some revenge on the bastard that designed me. Now if God didn't exist, that kinda puts the revenge plan....er....somewhere....
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/26/2007 8:30 AM · Permalink · Report
The bastard that designed you is none other but yourself. Get used to this idea. You are your own creation in the strictest sense of the word.
Indra was here (20755) on 6/26/2007 10:21 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]The bastard that designed you is none other but yourself. Get used to this idea. You are your own creation in the strictest sense of the word. [/Q --end Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]
That possibility is somewhat irritating. Probably because it means I spent 25 years of my life wasted on nothing as a right-wing Christian fundamentalist. I could go so far as "re-creating the dillusion of a creator", but my current intelligence prohibits that level of ignorance.
However, the supernatural elements within my historical past still provide the possibility of something higher than mankind...not neccesarily the prima causa but until there is undisputable proof either way, not relied on logical subjective assumption, I'll keep my options open.
Indra was here (20755) on 6/26/2007 5:22 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start DJP Mom wrote--]I've never understood why Why couldn't they have evolved? And what about the stupid stuff that goes with it, like breasts on men - was that an intelligent design error? Makes me mad! [/Q --end DJP Mom wrote--]
That only proves that God is Japanese and a pervert. Though, I can imagine, why does it make you mad?
DJP Mom (11333) on 6/26/2007 11:59 AM · Permalink · Report
He he, it's not the breasts on men that make me mad, it's the idiocy of the whole intelligent design idea and the insanity of ignoring all the evolutionary evidence, and the irritating fact that creationist/intelligent design groups actually have some clout in certain areas of the US. THAT makes me mad, as well as making sure I keep voting in school elections.
Indra was here (20755) on 6/26/2007 7:49 PM · Permalink · Report
Intelligence is somewhat relative in this matter. Try looking it from another perspective. How we see God doing with this world, is technically how children see how adults run the world.
Now which of us is more stupid....?
Indra was here (20755) on 6/20/2007 10:04 PM · Permalink · Report
Faith...and what happens when we are wrong to our beliefs? Theists have faith in an entity that cannot be proven. Atheists consider their logical reasoning as fact when it is different from faith as it can't be proven either.
What happens if we are wrong? We were wrong before:
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/21/2007 2:03 AM · Permalink · Report
The reason Westerners don't like metaphysicality is because its a lot of bullshit. God is a metaphysical concept. He connot be proven, and He cannot be seen. Any other metaphysical concept is just as much bullshit. I could just as easily say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deeper meaning behind life. And here you are, claiming that Schopenhauer has found the metaphysical purpose to life. But the only thing allowing you to believe such concepts are your own will and your own suspension of disbelief. Christians have a word for this. They call it faith.
I will state this as plainly as I possibly can: if you don't believe in God, yet believe in metaphysical banter, then you are hypocrite. You condemn Christians for believing in a concept with no proof, yet you turn around and put all your faith into the very same concept which you condemn. You put faith into a concept which could never be proven nor could it be observed and expect that it could hold up any better than the concept of God in a debate.
Ahhhh crap, I think I owe people A LOT of apologies. This was a complete mess up on my part.
Oleg, when you mentioned that I should research some metaphysical systems, I decided that this was a pretty good idea, and that Wikipedia was a good place to start :-). And it turns out what we've been talking about is waaaay different from what I originally thought it was. Take this excerpt from Wikipedia:
More recently, the term "metaphysics" has also been used more loosely to refer to "subjects that are beyond the physical world". A "metaphysical bookstore", for instance, is not one that sells books on ontology, but rather one that sells books on spirits, faith healing, crystal power, occultism, and other such topics.
There is one of these "metaphysical bookstores" around me (except it doesn't sell books, mostly just products. And when you mentioned this, I made the immediate connection, rather than what we were truly talking about. See, I had never heard the term being used outside the "metaphysical bookstore" sense, so I was confusing your views with something closer to occultism or some supernatural force like God rather than what you were saying.
I guess this really shows a lack of wisdom on my part. Sorry for insulting you, I guess metaphysics really isn't all bullshit, in fact now I realize that it's one of the best parts of philosophy. You just have to understand why I called it bullshit, considering what I thought you were actually talking about.
Sorry, I guess I just blame myself for being such an amateur at philoshopical debates and not recognizing the right term.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/21/2007 5:34 AM · Permalink · Report
Oh, I see. Anyway, I wasn't angry at all, I just thought it was pity you dismissed metaphysics like that... I had no idea the word "metaphysics" has become a substitute for spirits and such. In its original meaning, metaphysics is a part of philosophy that deals with the world (unlike, for example, ethics). It's like a continuation of physics. Actually, evolution theory is a metaphysical theory, not a physical one.
Indra was here (20755) on 6/21/2007 6:52 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]In its original meaning, metaphysics is a part of philosophy that deals with the world (unlike, for example, ethics). It's like a continuation of physics. Actually, evolution theory is a metaphysical theory, not a physical one. [/Q --end Unicorn B. Lynx wrote--]
Hehe. I seems everyone comes from a different angle. Metaphysics from where I come from usually only refers to the occult, spiritualism and anything that says Boo!
Discussing the of physics of a non-physical realm to us is just called "philosophy". We really need to get our definitions uniformed...
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/22/2007 12:28 AM · Permalink · Report
My definitions are the same as those established by Greek philosophers (I think Aristotle was the first who classified different aspects of philosophy) and since then adopted by pretty much every Western philosopher out there.
Metaphysics is not the same as philosophy; it is part of philosophy. Other parts are, for example, ethics, aesthetics, eschatology, onthology, etc. Each deals with a different question.
Matt Neuteboom (976) on 6/22/2007 3:33 AM · Permalink · Report
I'm not as much concerned that I got everyone angry as I am that I embarrassed myself. It showed a huge lack of knowledge on my part. The problem is that I don't usually read philosophy books, so I'm not up to date on all the terms and subdivisions of philosophy.
From now on lets just call it all "philosophy", regardless of what subdivision of philosophy it actually is from.
Indra was here (20755) on 6/22/2007 9:09 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
No worries Matt. Learning from mistakes makes one wiser faster than just being ignorant. It takes a certain degree of "wiseness" to accept such a reality and not shying away from it.
Besides, we're all virtual friends and family here in MobyGames (despite the tough welcoming commitee..hehe).
When it comes to formal intellectual definitions, I think we can rely Oleg to enlighten us in this degree, since both of us it seems, rarely read books on philosophy.