Café Philosophique

[Darnoc]

@Tinduriel: Philosophy isn't so senseless as you might think. In fact, every person does philosophy. To say that philosophy is useless is also philosophizing. And it isn't useless at all. You may think that it is just a fact that you do exist. But when you think harder over this subject, you see that it isn't so easy as it seems first. And that is what philosophy is for: To question everything.

 

Some now may say that it is useless to question everything. Why should this be useless? If we don't learn to question everything, we will believe in whatever another person says without thinking about it. And for this philosophy is also useful. Someone who questions things can't be so easily manipulated.

 

The first scientists were in fact philosophers who thought about things which we nowadays accept as facts. The idea of atoms was invented by Democrit, a greek philosopher, for example. I could mention a lot of other things which began as philosophy and became later on science (e.g. psychology). So you could say that philosophy is somehow the path-clearer for science.

 

One last thing: "philosophia" is a greek compound-noun and means "love of wisdom". And what is wiser: To just accept the fact that something must exist without even thinking about it or to know that something must exist after you thought about it? This is just a simple example and may sound strange to us. But the thinking about our existence is one of the most important and oldest subjects of humanity. There are many other examples, like ethics. Do you just accept what you learn is the "right way" or do you think about it and then come to a conclusion? Wisdom is something you must gain, which you must search for. You don't get it when you sit there and accept everything you are told, you have to do something for it. And that is the other reason, why philosophy exists.

 

 

@Breton Thief Orania: Well, to use my famous novelist example (in fact I've got it from the book "Sophias Wolrd". I can recommend it to everyone interested in philosophy, it is a philosophical novel and very interesting...):

 

I am a super-being and I have powers of which you can only dream of (not in reality, just to show you what I mean). Now I also have the capability to create a whole fantasy world with lots of characters in it and to play every single character in this world, because I am so advanced. This world only exists in my head and also the characters.

 

Now I immagine myself a guy called "Daerk" who has the great idea to make a mod of the famous fantasy world "Middle Earth" (which of course I also invented) and to create a forum in which my characters can discuss about this mod and othert things, like philosophy (still I am playing all the roles; it's really fun to philosophize with myself). Now I have invented a character which in this forum has the nickname of "Breton Thief Orania" and I give him the role of an antithesists, which counters the arguments of another character I invented called "Darnoc" in this forum. I made the role of Breton Thief Orania so that he always thinks that he really exists. Of course, it is only me who can seperate my super-spirit to play different roles in my imaginary world. Those parts of my spirit are thinking that they exist as seperate beings inside this world, inside my head, but still I controll every part of my spirit (because it is my spirit) and I know that every part is only myself doing as if I were several beings. It's kind of amusing to do as if those characters really exist....

 

You get my point, Breton?

[Breton Thief Oriana]

yes, i understand. a law of philosophy to me is to accept known paradoxies, such as this. but i do know that we exist, even if it is only in the mind of our creator. existance, being an arbitrary distinction of what we think and what we know, comes from a medium of both. we know that we are typing words that the other responds to. we may either think we exist or not, and i think we do, because even the characters in a story exist if they are written about. the central bieng might have created us, but even if it is using us as puppets, we see things, and remember things, and percieve and estimate the ammount of things. and, therefore, existance is not in thinking or knowing, but both, which cannot happen at the same time, unless your allmighty being is more than one minded, where he could think and know everything at the same time, which would most probably drive any being insane. of course, any being must be insane to have created us.

[Ancalagon]

An excellent discourse on one's perception of, this thing that eludes me ^_^ , reality would be Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Which, if I may add, is what the Wachowzki Brothers used for the idea of 'The Matrix'. Basically, every person has a different perception of reality, or no two people view reality the same. (I sense that this ties into Kant's theory).

 

As of now, I cannot remember all of Allegory save that it was a wonderful read and gave me a horrendus migrane that lasted for a week. I am not familiar with Kant, but I would like to hear from someone who is familiar with Kant and at least familiar with Allegory, sa they may tell me if the two are theorizing (vaguely) the same thing.

[Tinduriel]

@Darnoc: I definately should use more smilies. Of course I was only kidding earlier about philosphy being an blah blah sciense. And I know pretty well or I like to think that I know the history of philosophy. Now I made you type hell of an long post. :)

 

Ancalagon you are right, Plato's Allegory would be the first story/theory that talks about not real reality that I remeber. And Kant was theorising about many things. One of them was of course ontology. Kant said that we can't observe beings themself. When I see my monitor in fron of me I don't see the monitor itself. But I always see the monitor in a specific place, in a specific time and so on. It is a bit different to Plato's Allegory.

 

If I remember correctly the allegory went something like this. There are people taken into a deep cave and tied to a wall so that they can't turn their heads. They are always looking at the back wall of the cave. Now when people walk past the mouth of the cave, the cave-people only see shadows bouncing in the back wall of the cave. These cave-people have been tied up here very long. So they can't remeber how the real world was, and if they do they think it as a dream. This means that the shadows are real beings to those cave-people. This fits perfectly to Plato's idealism. Now when one of the cave-people would be dragged into the real world he would not like it and struggle to stop it happening. But still he would be dragged out of the cave. He would likely be afraid of the sun and all the new things at first. But when he got to know them he surely would like to tell about them to the cave-people. And tell them how the real world is. Now these people who have seen the real world are like philosophists(sp?) in our cave.. oops, world. I think that this allegory was ment to those people in greece who had a hard time imagining all the ideas and stuff that Plato talked about.

 

If you want it in a sensible and readable way, I think that Darnoc could tell you more. And this information might be all wrong it's straight out of my memory which isn't that good.

[Darnoc]

You told it the right way, Tinduriel. But Platon wasn't talking about the same thing as Kant.

 

Platon made a difference between the world as we observe it now and the world of ideas. Take a horse. Every horse looks different. But there are several signs by which we know that this is a horse. Those signs all horses do share and this is the idea "horse", which exists on a spiritual level. Platon believed now that our horses (and everything else) was created after these ideas. For Platon, our materialistic world was only a shadow (the cave) while the world of ideas was the real world (the area outside the cave of which the cave-dwellers only see the shadows)

 

Kant talked about a very different subject. He thought that our world is real, but that we couldn't observe it. It is not possible for us, the "subjects", to observe the "objects". And there your example with the monitor was a good one, Tinduriel. We can only observe the appearances of those objects, defined by our way of looking and thinking (time, space, logic, causality, ideologies, beliefs etc.). So in fact you don't know what the monitor in front of you really is. And said in other words: It is not possible to gain any absolute truth about how reality is. This applies also to science, because also science is only observing the appearances of objects and not the objects themselves. We can only say true statements about those appearances. "I see an appearances, which looks like a red apple" would be a true statement (at least it comes near the truth, because we also can't gain any knowledge about ourselves, because when we look at ourselves, then we become the objects of observing and are therefore not observable). The statement "I see red apple" is not true, because I can't observe the object itself.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

Well, if we know that we see an object that has the appearance of a red apple, who do we know words we use are right? we might be the apple viewing itself, and therfore not viewable. and furthermore, we dont even know that the word object is right, but that is how we describe it through language. differing from subject, there is partial basis of existance being a mirage, with all the illusions that confuse us being a grand model of this existance. but we dont know of a higher plane of existance, nor do we know that there is a feeling of unenlightenment. we dont know if, when we are this> :rip: , we can be either this> :nazgul: or this> :innocent: , or if each of their domains exist, but we have a feeling. and our feelings can only be trusted in conjunction with our thinking. and such a feat is difficult.

[Ancalagon]

I suppose that a plane of higher existance could be achived only if one were to obtain the 'absolute truth of reality'. Maybe that's how you become, in our terms, a 'God'; by understanding the Nature of All and being able to somehow 'see' the actual object (whatever it may be, apple or orange ^_^ ). Once you understand that, then pehaps you can exist on all levels of reality or conciousness and therefore would physically disappear.

 

Here's aninteresting thing some of you should try:

Oftentimes I have just been daydreaming and, for reasons that are beyond me, I'll begin to contemplate what existance is, or what it is to be concious of oneself. Not so much 'Why are we here?', but rather 'What is here?'. I also like to wonder just how we came into possession of being senitent (That is, aware of oneself. That you exist in some plausible way). Is there some certain number of Brain Cells or folds in the Brain that you must have in order to achieve sentience?

 

Or, you could just contemplate non-existence and prepare to have the **** scared out of you...

[Shakkara]

Here's aninteresting thing some of you should try:

Oftentimes I have just been daydreaming and, for reasons that are beyond me, I'll begin to contemplate what existance is, or what it is to be concious of oneself. Not so much 'Why are we here?', but rather 'What is here?'.

Well I myself have similar experiences, however in my case everything suddenly stops believing existance is real. Actually when I think about it, I always think as if what you call reality is not real, no more real then what you see on TV or on your computerscreen. However in such moments I begin to question what is happening and just cannot grasp it, so I usually give up and let it slip.

 

I also like to wonder just how we came into possession of being senitent (That is, aware of oneself. That you exist in some plausible way). Is there some certain number of Brain Cells or folds in the Brain that you must have in order to achieve sentience?

Well I do not believe your brain does the actual thinking, I believe it only acts as a filter and interprets what we experience and allows you to control your body. I heard somewhere that we actually experience a lot more, but most gets filtered out by your brain.

 

Or, you could just contemplate non-existence and prepare to have the **** scared out of you...

Why should anyone be scared of that?

[SimVig]

I get really frightened when I start thinking about stuff like that - non-existance, what lies beyond our galaxy, trying to grasp the consept of eternal in both directions of time, the consept of endless space. Uuh, it's scary :P I don't know why... Wow, I just got an idea! Why are humans afraid of getting into the depths of such thoughts? Maybe it's somehow programmed into us by some malicious demons (for lack of a better word) so we don't realize the truth? Ideas anyone?

[Breton Thief Oriana]

Wow, I just got an idea! Why are humans afraid of getting into the depths of such thoughts? Maybe it's somehow programmed into us by some malicious demons (for lack of a better word) so we don't realize the truth? Ideas anyone?

well, maybe, but the truth is whatever one wishes to believe. if i believe that i can fly, even if i cant, its the truth. and if i die trying, i will never know the opposite to that truth. and we are afraid of contemplation because we have allways known existance, so thinking about nonexistance brings a change in us that we are afraid of. or, possibly, it is to protect us from realizing that we might not exist, if darnocs allmighty being is trying to do such.