Philosophical question of the Week

[philosopher101]

NNOO!!!!!

 

I wantz to know too!

 

Here, I'll show this awesome picture of a naked chick:

 

:fakenopic:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you owe me one!

 

I'm not going to tell you the answer for some porno!

 

You must think im some kind of a nwb.

 

 

Anyway everyone keep guessing and collaborating!

 

I'll let you now if your getting closer.

[Marcus Wolfe]

Of course I think you're a N00b!

 

It says 'newbie' right under your name, n00b!

[Vagrant0]

Because you have taken such an interest into my question here is the answer and explanation.

 

you will never know, because you dont even know what you look like now.

 

A person can only see bits and pecies of themselvs (their arms, legs, hands, tips of their massive noses.) But no person can see for themselvs what they really look like. A mirror or a pool of water can give you a reflection which is not the real deal, a reflection is only a copy, an imintation of the reality that a person sees with their own two eyes.

 

Thus if you thought about it long enough and eliminated all the possibilties all men can agree that they have never seen nor can they ever see their own image.

 

 

If this does not satisfy you let me know. I did not come up with this question myself it was only a eye opener. An eye opener to not take the most obvious answer, and to actually think and i mean think hard. Most people answering are taking the obvious answer which is not always the best.

 

I hope you understand, you may not think the question is a very goo done but the answer is universal.

 

No person can tell another person what they really look like. Because a person can only see bits and pieces not the whole picture.

 

It's an answer, but it's more along the lines of the sort of thing some stoner would spurt out mid buzz than what a true philosopher would really hold onto. The fact that we never see ourselves, as others see ourselves does not prevent us from KNOWing ourselves, or diminish the value that one can obtain from that pursuit. A person who is blind from birth will never have seen the world with their eyes, but they are still able to have knowledge and understanding of that world. More over, who is to say that if you did see yourself, that it would be that fabled "true self" and not distorted by your own perceptions. For it is really the perceptions and cognitions people make about what they're seeing that makes all the difference. Without that subjectivity, all sight is is recieving light as it bounces off others... Which would actually kinda kill your explaination as well since you're never actually seeing anyhing other than light, or the absense of light, and the light you are seeing has to pass through several things before it hits the receptors in your eye, and then needs to work its way through a complex network of nerves to be processed and recorded by the brain. Meaning that the process of seeing anything can never be pure. Gnőthi sautón, you should be familiar with this phrase, although seeing oneself might be part of the process, it should not be the focus of ones endevors for those reasons mentioned. You might actually get closer by asking others what you look like, and contemplating their answers, then seeing for yourself. Atleast then the answers given will not be subject to any single set of perceptions.

 

This is all beside the point, and your answer really doesn't apply to your initial question "What did you look like before your parents were born?".

 

So again I ask, what are you hoping to achieve here?

 

And yeah, I had to ruin it. I see no point in things continuing as they have been the last few pages, and the pointless arguments which have occured. I'm not being combative to be mean, I'm doing it mostly since conflict is often the best way to bring forth growth. In this case, it may cause you to think further of what ideas you may have. And I've just been feeling all phiolsophical lately.

[Xeniorn]

Your on your way but you have to keep thinking.

 

Try answering these questions. What do you look like?

How can you be sure?

And how reliable is the source of your information?

 

I'm not some nwb trying to give you a riddle this question should take lots of thinking.

 

And remember the most obvious answer is rarely the best?

 

 

 

And if anybody is interested they can have the answer just dont spread it around!!!

 

1) I don't know.

2) I cannot.

3) Less than 100%

 

You're trying to impose yourself above us mere mortals, as if any of us had never been thinking about this or something very similar. Each one of us has his own view on the matter, I really hope you don't believe your has some magical reason to be better than our one. You sound as if you've only recently discovered the wonders of philosophy and now you believe yourself to be so very much smarter than us. PM me your answer. Although I can't see why you can't post the answer here. Nobody thinks your question has any logic and you should disillusion us by posting your answer that is so simple and perfect. Then we might bother to get deeper into your next question, if you prove us you're for real and that there really is a good answer.

 

EDIT: You've added the answer and then edited your post and removed it!?

Alright... You asked us what did we look like. That question has an obligatory presumption, when you ask it you are also stating that we do look like something. Using "to look like something" was extremely wrong in this case because you can understand it in so many different ways. Of course, you didn't bother to enlighten us to what you mean by that. Until you've answered us what do you mean by that exactly, we couldn't accurately answer your question.

 

You've asked, WHAT did we look like. Not WILL we ever know. You asked a question that cannot be answered, and everybody knew it cannot be. Alas you failed to recognize the answer. You also somehow expected that we should know that you actually want us to think about the ability to see ourselves at all, not only when nonexistent.

 

So, Vagrant0 has said it was an answer, but a lousy one. I say that is not an answer, at least not to your question. You've just made a statement to say the question was unanswerable, after torturing us with your nagging stubbornness and insisting on the fact there was a universal, clear and correct answer.

[Vagrant0]

EDIT: You've added the answer and then edited your post and removed it!?

Alright... You asked us what did we look like. That question has an obligatory presumption, when you ask it you are also stating that we do look like something. Using "to look like something" was extremely wrong in this case because you can understand it in so many different ways. Of course, you didn't bother to enlighten us to what you mean by that. Until you've answered us what do you mean by that exactly, we couldn't accurately answer your question.

 

You've asked, WHAT did we look like. Not WILL we ever know. You asked a question that cannot be answered, and everybody knew it cannot be. Alas you failed to recognize the answer. You also somehow expected that we should know that you actually want us to think about the ability to see ourselves at all, not only when nonexistent.

 

So, Vagrant0 has said it was an answer, but a lousy one. I say that is not an answer, at least not to your question. You've just made a statement to say the question was unanswerable, after torturing us with your nagging stubbornness and insisting on the fact there was a universal, clear and correct answer.

Actually, he sent that answer in a PM to me. I guess I should have made that clear. I did however feel it was more beneficial in sharing since this thread would otherwise just be a little guessing game, and that really isn't good philosophy. It isn't good philosophy because once people have thought about the question, given an answer that someone else doesn't accept, and get bored with it, they'll just keep spouting anything just to eventually find something that can be agreed upon. Effectively thinking less and less about the actual question each time an answer is given (or end up going crazy).

[philosopher101]

I appreciate your points and that is good. But if you really thought about the answer you would also realize that the answer to the question is an answer to many questions. I don't agree with your descion about revealing teh answer to everyone else but that's the point. No matter what opinion you take on anyhting there will be someone else to argue with you. And thus i thought it appropriate to start with the question that was so contradictory to reasonable thought. But the question can not be answered by reason alone. In order to answer the question you would need, to use your own experience and through experience you have absoulutly no clue what you REALY look like. And thus you have the answer "you will never know" Beacuse there is no way for a person using only reason can be sure of their apperance at the current time or anytime.

 

As I have already said not everyone would agree with me and that is fine. There are some people who concour with the explanation, and there are those who reject it. But I used this question first so as to emphasize thinking beyond the point of reason. If you see what I'm saying great if not that's fine. This queston was and is not unanswerable but of those who do not understand they are the people who haven't figured out the REAL meaning, I'm not going to hold your hand. I never have, nor do I claim, nor will I claim that I am smarter than anyone else. I will never claim that the explanation will be taken as truth by everyone. But none of you can say that you have seen you own face with your own eyes. That much I do understand.

 

I am going to leave this question behind and proceed with the new one on April-25-2008 C.E.

 

But the thougts i saw some people thinking are not going to get them very far. Thinking is good but only thinking does not help anyone.

 

If you don't beliave me i won't make you...

 

That's not what i do.

[buddah]

*closed by request of OP*