Dubstepforum.com

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:01 pm**

This ninja is buddhist

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:31 am**

do we reincarnate?

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:40 am**

Hysteria wrote:Im doing philosophy at college atm,
i think the more interesting side of it is the religious sections, i did a paper merking out christianity.
Bare questions like

If gods all powerful, could he create a stone that even he can't lift? And if he can't lift it then surely he's not all powerful.

If god is all loving then why is there suffering in the world?

If god knows everything that were going to do, then do we still have free will?

There are better ones but i cant remember them off the top of my head

1. is he stupid???
2. cause there is more humanity in animals
3. u cant get nothing for free ,even ur will ! u must pay for ur freedom to human

even i'm not religious i find this a very stupid

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:44 am**

I do philosophy at A level, i dont think its a stupid question, i think its stupid to dwell on things like that though, you'll more likely than not never find the answer to something like that. There are so many people I know who are hellbent on all the massive questions that they really don't enjoy themselves, even if life isnt real, enjoy it because it's all you have unless there's something after it

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:02 am**

bagelator wrote:
Tomity wrote:
Ashley wrote:What a pointless degree.
Surely you can't teach someone to be philosophical? You either are or your not. Its like teaching someone to be artistic.

i agree with your point. degrees are for further study, not teaching people shit imo. a degree in philosophy is interesting but not very useful. my english literature degree is much the same.

For the most part, I think, degrees are thinking about stuff in order to learn how to think about stuff, not thinking about stuff in order to learn the answers to the stuff. It's like boxers skip and do push ups a lot, not because when they get in the ring they'll pull out a skipping rope and the other guy will brick it, but because it builds up strength and endurance.

Or like maths. I've just finished a maths PhD and am now doing a bit of temporary work involving stuff like neural networks and fuzzy logic. Now, nothing in my degree or PhD had a great deal to do with either of these topics, but I'm currently finding that I can pick up a graduate level textbook on the subject and get the information I want out of it, because I'm used to doing the same thing in the areas of maths that I did study.

Studying philosophy doesn't mean that you suddenly know everything you need to know about life, but it does mean you can follow complicated arguments, think critically about stuff, and absorb very abstract ideas. Which is a good thing whatever you end up doing. For instance, I reckon if you gave a bunch of philosophy students a political feature from a (serious) newspaper and asked them to summarize its argument and point out any weaknesses in it, you'd generally get something more useful out of the ones who've completed their course with a decent grade than from the ones who'd started that week.

Oh, and Descarte pretty much invented coordinates and hence algebraic geometry, which makes him the daddy as far as I'm concerned. Plus he was a firm believer in the importance of staying in bed all morning.

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:20 am**

bandshell wrote:I do philosophy at A level, i dont think its a stupid question, i think its stupid to dwell on things like that though, you'll more likely than not never find the answer to something like that.

I don't see a great future for you in philosophy tbh. The question is not whether you'll ever find an answer, it's how long you'll be able to keep getting AHRC funding to look for one...

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:21 am**

haha I'm not considering a future in it, its just something i chose to do because it's more interesting than everything else there is on offer.

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:22 am**

Sorry, that post needed a lot more "

".

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:34 am**

bandshell wrote:I do philosophy at A level, i dont think its a stupid question, i think its stupid to dwell on things like that though, you'll more likely than not never find the answer to something like that. There are so many people I know who are hellbent on all the massive questions that they really don't enjoy themselves, even if life isnt real, enjoy it because it's all you have unless there's something after it

yeah but can you explain to me why its not a stupid question? if you didn't exist you woudn't be able to think about it - period.
what evidence is there to suggest you don't exist?

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:39 am**

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:18 am**

I am buddhist, although i do not subscribe to the though of reincarnation.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:24 pm**

Cogito ergo sum

Posted: **Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:33 am**

i find that a great way to shut them up is to play it the other way.
'how do you know you really exist?'
'i probably don't'
'oh.'
then they leave you alone.

in four years of studying philosophy and this served me well!

the reason its not a stupid question is because 'i think therefore i am' is a perfectly clever answer. so even if you're not a real person, but a brain in a jar or a blip in a computer server, the fact that you can consider the question and try to come up with a response proves that your mind really exists, therefore in some sense you really exist.

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:57 am**

do you think we have free will?
in the future once psychology/neurology etc has progressed far far, will we be able to map out every behaviourism and reaction to whatever?
just like we know that if we do x to y to some metal for instance, its completely predictable.

could we do the same for a virus? yes i would say.

how about a very basic animal? like a ant or something, surely they arn't very complicated so its easier to comprehend,

but then it gets harder, a monkey? do they have free will or are they just bound to do whatever is a programmed reaction to a stimulus?

and then humans?...

/drunk.

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:26 am**

The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent everything becomes clear and undisguised. Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions for or against anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind.

When the deep meaning of things is not understood the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

The Way is perfect like vast space when nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess.

Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject that we do not see the true nature of things.

Live neither in the entanglements of outer things nor in inner feelings of emptiness.

Be serene in the oneness of things and such erroneous views will disappear by themselves.

When you try to stop activity to achieve passivity your very effort fills you with activity.

As long as you remain in one extreme or the other you will never know Oneness.

Those who do not live in the single Way fail in both activity and passivity, assertion and denial.

To deny the reality of things is to miss their reality; to assert the emptiness of things is to miss their reality.

The more you talk and think about it, the further astray you wander from the truth.

Stop talking and thinking, and there is nothing you will not be able to know.

To return to the root is to find the meaning, but to pursue appearances is to miss the source.

At the moment of inner enlightenment there is a going beyond appearance and emptiness.

The changes that appear to occur in the empty world we call real only because of our ignorance.

Do not search for the truth; only cease to cherish opinions.

Do not remain in the dualistic state -- avoid such pursuits carefully.

If there is even a trace of this and that, of right and wrong, the Mind-essence will be lost in confusion.

Although all dualities come from the One, do not be attached even to this One.

When the mind exists undisturbed in the Way, nothing in the world can offend, and when such a thing can no longer offend, it ceases to exist in the old way.

When no discriminating thoughts arise, the old mind ceases to exist.

When thought objects vanish, the thinking-subject vanishes, as when the mind vanishes, objects vanish.

Things are objects because of the subject (mind); the mind (subject) is such because of things (object).

Understand the relativity of these two and the basic reality: the unity of emptiness.

In this emptiness the two are indistinguishable and each contains in itself the whole world.

If you do not discriminate between coarse and fine you will not be tempted to prejudice and opinion.

To live in the Great Way is neither easy nor difficult, but those with limited views are fearful and irresolute; the faster they hurry, the slower they go, and clinging (attachment) cannot be limited; even to be attached to the idea of enlightenment is to go astray.

Just let things be in their own way and there will be neither coming nor going.

Obey the nature of things (your own nature), and you will walk freely and undisturbed.

When thought is in bondage the truth is hidden, for everything is murky and unclear, and the burdensome practice of judging brings annoyance and weariness.

What benefits can be derived from distinctions and separations?

If you wish to move in the One Way do not dislike even the world of senses and ideas.

Indeed, to accept them fully is identical with true Enlightenment.

The wise man strives to no goals but the foolish man fetters himself.

There is one Dharma, not many; distinctions arise from the clinging needs of the ignorant.

To seek Mind with the (discriminating) mind is the greatest of all mistakes.

Rest and unrest derive from illusion; with enlightenment there is no liking and disliking.

All dualities come from ignorant inference. They are like dreams or flowers in air: foolish to try to grasp them.

Gain and loss, right and wrong: such thoughts must finally be abolished at once.

If the eye never sleeps, all dreams will naturally cease.

If the mind makes no discriminations, the ten thousand things are as they are, of single essence.

To understand the mystery of this One-essence is to be released from all entanglements.

When all things are seen equally the timeless Self-essence is reached.

No comparisons or analogies are possible in this causeless, relationless state.

Consider movement stationary and the stationary in motion, both movement and rest disappear.

When such dualities cease to exist Oneness itself cannot exist.

To this ultimate finality no law or description applies.

For the unified mind in accord with the Way all self-centered striving ceases.

Doubts and irresolutions vanish and life in true faith is possible.

With a single stroke we are freed from bondage; nothing clings to us and we hold to nothing.

All is empty, clear, self-illuminating, with no exertion of the mind's power.

Here thought, feeling, knowledge, and imagination are of no value.

In this world of suchness there is neither self nor other-than-self.

To come directly into harmony with this reality just simply say when doubt arises, 'Not two.'

In this 'not two' nothing is separate, nothing is excluded.

No matter when or where, enlightenment means entering this truth.

And this truth is beyond extension or diminution in time or space; in it a single thought is ten thousand years.

Emptiness here, Emptiness there, but the infinite universe stands always before your eyes.

Infinitely large and infinitely small; no difference, for definitions have vanished and no boundaries are seen.

So too with Being and Non-Being.

Don't waste time with doubts and arguments that have nothing to do with this.

One thing, all things: move among and intermingle, without distinction.

To live in this realization is to be without anxiety about non-perfection.

To live in this faith is the road to non-duality, because the non-dual is one with trusting mind.

Words!

The Way is beyond language, for in it there is no yesterday, no tomorrow, no today.

~Seng-ts'an

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:57 am**

I'm not really all the big on philosophy but I've read my fair share. A good book to read would be Jean-Paul Sartre's Nausea. Really quite good, it deals with the those fleeting moments that come along every so often where everything thing seems very immediate and you consider the nature of the things around you and what it means to exist. The book is a pillar of existentialism but I think it's a good read in it's own right.

Posted: **Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:36 am**

dTruk wrote:i guess it all depends on how naive of a defintion the individual has of what god is.

alot of people tend to externalize god which is where the 'i hate you, why do you let bad things happen' and all the other pretty shallow arguments come from. god isnt some guy with a beard moving shit around. god is the universe itself. you're god, im god ,the cats god the trees and the ocean is god.

and for the bad things happening and suffering, thats all bought on through human actions and perceptions. things die. its the cycle. the suffering isnt the actual event, the suffering is the mental reaction to the event.

its a bit esoteric and almost a cliche to mention but 'all is one'

remove the personalization and defintions from everyhting in life and what you are left with is your true nature.

I agree somewhat. God is the universe, I agree with that but neither of us can prove God isnt a bearded man on a cloud. In the same fasion no one can prove he isnt. In either case the idea of good/bad could just be an illusion if u will of the human brain. Something we create in our own mind, that is unique to us all. What is good for me might be bad for the next man. The nature of God aside who is to say what Gods interpritation of good/bad or right/wrong is, or if it even has one. That is presuming there is a God in the first place.

And even if there is a God, he is a dude on a fluffy cloud, he does have a concept of right and wrong and it does match entirely with yours, this existance might be a lesson to teach us all why we should hold these values. So the suffering on this planet could be explained even within the most rediculous (imo) definitions of what God is.

fuagofire wrote: yeah but can you explain to me why its not a stupid question? if you didn't exist you woudn't be able to think about it - period.
what evidence is there to suggest you don't exist?

well, it depends on your definition of 'yourself'. If u go with I think therefor I am, ie, if I can think then there must be something that is calculating these thoughts, and u class yourself as whatever these thoughts come from then its pretty hard to get around that, its almost certain u exist on some level. But if u think of 'yourself' as an individual, seperate from other people and existing within ur body then its not so clear cut. This whole universe could be a manifistation of a single conciousness, and what u think of as your conciousness could just be a tiny fraction of a bigger one, like an individual train of thought. In this case neither your body or mind exists as an individual and its just an illusion. So the stupidity of the question sort of depends on what u wanna lump into ur definition of 'yourself'. The fact that the question doesnt specify this makes it stupid in a whole other light imo.

sonar wrote:do you think we have free will?
in the future once psychology/neurology etc has progressed far far, will we be able to map out every behaviourism and reaction to whatever?
just like we know that if we do x to y to some metal for instance, its completely predictable.

could we do the same for a virus? yes i would say.

how about a very basic animal? like a ant or something, surely they arn't very complicated so its easier to comprehend,

but then it gets harder, a monkey? do they have free will or are they just bound to do whatever is a programmed reaction to a stimulus?

and then humans?...

/drunk.

thats an interesting train of thought. Again it rests on the nature of reality etc which is all guesswork. If we take certain things for granted for sake of discussion, that the universe came from the big bang, that life evolved, there is no 'soul' and conciousness is a manifestation of physical activity in the brain (which seems to be the average non religeous view of the universe) then I would argue that no, we have no free will. And his is sort of based on what ur talking about there with being able to calculate through cause and effect. We know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that energy is never lost/created but only transfered from one thing to another. Therefor the entire history of the universe and everything in it was decided from the moment of the big bang, including ur entire life and everything you will ever think and do. Bit of a big jump there I know, so to try and explain a little further.

Its like a domino chain. You push the first domino and the chain starts dropping, the last domino is still standing but by observing the entire string of them its obvious from the first push the last one WILL fall. Well the matter of our universe is still moving around in a simillar fasion from that first big bang. No evergy has been created or lost since then, only transfered from one domino to the next. Therefor every single movement in mass that has occured, including the one(s) that spawned life itself could have been calculated right from the start.

Our conciousness would work in a simillar fasion. What makes up the 'free will' u exercise daily is a combination of the predisposition u have to certain types of thought given to you by your genetic makeup, your enviroment and what u have learnt from the actions u have put in place using ur free will. But the first time u exercised that free will, the first concious decision u made when u were born, that could not have been influenced by learning from previous actions. Therefor that first input u had was based soley on your genetic predispositions and the enviroment u found yourself in when u were born, neither of which u had any control over. So that first act of 'free will' was based entirely on factors outside your control, and anything learnt from it is therefor something that was entirely outside your control and predesposed by your genetics and your enviroment. You second act of input into the world will include what has been learnt from the first, and after some time it will start to seem as if u are actually making decissions and exercising free will but if u trace to domino chain back it is all predetermined by factors outside of your mind and therfor outside of your control, and if one could calculate your genetics and the enviroment you always find youself in completely then everything you will think and do in your life could be worked out from the start.

All this would sugest that free will is an illusion spawned from our inability to calculate all the factors that make us who we are.

However, if we take the idea I mentioned earlier for instance, that the universe is spawned from a conciousness, or that we have a soul that is not physical matter and therefor possibly not effected by the big bang and its repercussions, or that God in the strict christian sense does exist, then we could well have free will. The laws of physics themselves might be just a figment of imagination, not unchanging but a variable, and litterally anything could be possible in these situations. None of these situations can be proved or disproved, so ultimatly it all boils down to your beliefs, which is the problem with Philosophy really. You can talk and theorise endlessly, and the more u do the less ull actually know for sure untill u get down to I think therefor SOMETHING must exist, and even then someone with a warped enough mind could probably find a way of talking around that one given enough time.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:47 pm**

"Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer."

- Immanuel Kant

+

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:05 pm**

tbh it's not really forum discussion material let alone the pub.

It's a huge question and something that has been pondered for many hundreds of years.

Posted: **Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:01 am**

Having considered the original question for some time and having regard to my pretensions, I am prepared at this time to reply as follows: "Yes, with qualifications."
Thank you for asking.

Dubstepforum.com

Any ninja's do philosophy?