Moral Philosophy

[aseepish]

And I quote:

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel,

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.

All you need to know about philosphy you can learn from Monty Python.

[eXcessiveForce]

I was thinking more along the lines of Dr. Seuss or maybe Douglas adams.

At least his arguments would rhyme or be so silly that it would be funny.


either way it would make his posts more bearable.

[Crouchtig]

you want me to ryme?
perhaps i will do so... in time

nope wont work

ok

ill avoid writing posts unless i actualy have something to say that will contribute to the discussion

perhaps your thinking should be concerned with not whether or not god exists but whether or not knowing this will help you

the importance of a discovery should be based on its practical value to us

the invention of the wheel by this logic is extremely important

unless knowing that god does or does not exist is actualy of some use to us then it is not really worth knowing (it would be NICE to know but wouldnt help us in any way)


does thinking about morality help you personaly or the species as a whole?

if not then perhaps we should stop wasting our time with it

[cyrijl]

on the practical:

understanding the world in which one exists is a practical endeavor. It is like weight lifting...you life a little and then a little more, then you can lift alot. The strength can then be transferred onto other areas.


As far as your 'nothing' rant...here's the prob.

There is no such thing as nothing
Here are the first two simple understandings:

1-You cannot discuss nothingness by extending being as one of its attributes. This is counter-productive. And since discussing non-beingness is absurd, so it discussion about the existence of nothingness

2-In order for nothingness to exists, it must have boundries, hence shape. Something which can be contained in space cannot be nothing

And just in case you for some reason have read Heidegger's :What is Metaphysics?: The nothingness which Heidegger posits is in reality a name for God.

Try getting out of that triangle.

Ethics?Kant? Kant can go F**K himself...

[Crouchtig]

i see your point about weightlifting. but try to imagine that philosophy is a muscle that has no real use
you can lift all you want
the strength you gain will not be useful in other areas

but. if you enjoy weightlifting then this will not be a problem (if philosophy is enjoyable then i suppose it makes sense to do it. oh **** ive "flip-floped" to the other end of the discussion once again)

but on the other hand: changing your mind is an important part of learning. hence my ability to change my mind often could lead to faster learning and may there fore be an advantage.

i understood your first "simple" understanding so i guess i must be learning. however the meaning of the second understanding still iludes me. was it: nothing cannot exist because the space in which it was contained would have to exist?

i associate the increased intelligence of my posts to three factors:

i am more expirienced in writing them
since i have been on holiday my mind is not being used for work and thus i am putting more thought into writing posts
i am led to believe that reading shakespears "a midsummer nights dream" has increased the complexity of my language which in turn gives the illusion of a higher intelect

i have succeeded in impressing myself most considerably with my own writing ability

now if youll kindly excuse me i shall take my leave

[cyrijl]

put simply:

If you could imagine nothing(ness) as a black entity, it would still possess a shape, a boundry---something to limit its envelopment of being(s). The fact that it has a shape would mean that it indeed existed and hence could not be nothing.

[Crouchtig]

but if i dont give it a shape then it is nothing(ness)

it doesnt really matter if i imagine it as having a shape if that was the way my mind worked

in theory my idea would still work the same

[cyrijl]

nothingness by its character cannot exist

[Crouchtig]

thats a mere technicality

i did not say it existed

i said it is

i know that technicly that cant be but how else am i supposed to describe it?

ok allow me to re-phrase:

but if i dont give it a shape then it ISNT nothing(ness)
by which i mean that there isnt anything (not that there isnt nothing as that implies something)

see what youve done

[Crouchtig]

look you have to decide

are you going to be funny or are you just going to insult people?