*Takes a deep breath* I wonder what I'm going to start here.

Kumari

---

To me philosophy is about exploring ideas and expanding the mind and asking questions and exploring different answers.

---

Expanding and exploring is all well and good, but evenutally you have to come to some conclusions. Philosophy is how one lives his or her own life and the realisations that he or she come to in order to live life as best as they see fit. There are broader Philosophies dealing with society and peoples but it all stems down to how it is we live our lives and what is the best way to do it. It's not necessarily about attempting to understand and learn and try everything. People not comfortable with their own philosophy tend to do that to no end and no conclusions of their own.


Sir Spectre


... No more signature. <-----Irony

Edited by - Sir Spectre on 15-11-2003 18:36:45

haha ROAR I eat u!

Here's what i think spectre. You're talking about 1 definition of philosophy. "philosophy; a way of living". I'm talking about another definition "philosophy; exploring questions". I would venture that a major difference between these definitions is conclusions. Personally i shy away from the word conclusion altogether. But for the sake of this discussion i would say that "philosophy; exploring questions" ceases to be when answers are found. What i mean by that is: Once you have "the" answer the question no longer needs asking. (whatever "the" means )

Ultimately spectre i thought tawa was talking about "philosophy; exploring questions". Perhaps i was wrong. In which case i totally agree.

ROOOAR

kumari --- "You are ALL my brothers and sisters."

Edited by - kumari on 16-11-2003 02:21:28

Aha! SnS is guilty of #31!

@Kumari

It's all of the above don't you think? There would be no philosophy without questions and answers (tentative or otherwise) ... or conclusions. For example, another way to put it is that Philosophy is a quest for answers.

It's all right there in the Hitchikers Guide - the what philosophy might be part, not the answer part.

All of the above and more i'd say It's such a broad topic and the particular meaning needs to be clarified from time to time.

I used to draw conclusions from philosophical thinking but now i tend to think that conclusions (to a certain extent) shouldn't be drawn. Let me give an example:

---

You are on a small island with a woman and child (u just met these people) and a boat that holds 2. One person has to stay and probably die but 2 people could take the boat and probably reach safety. Who should go in the boat and who should stay on the island?

---

I believe the reason for such a philosophical discussion is not so much the conclusions you draw but the thoughts and feelings that come from the question. A person may come away from the discussion with some insight into themselves or some other thing which they value. I think that's the main idea. As an example: I am inclined to value women and children over men (i'm a man). This is a conclusion i can draw about my personal beliefs (valid). The conclusion: "put the woman and child in the boat" might be the right move or it might be a mistake (what if u later find out that the woman was a convict and murdered the child?)... i would say the only good reason for drawing that kind of conclusion is if u were faced with such a specific situation later in life.

mm... i have more ideas coming out here i'm going to go write some journals

I'm sure to have people disagreeing with what i said. I don't want everyone to agree with me but i would like everyone to consider the merrits of my ideas. That's all.

kumari --- "You are ALL my brothers and sisters."

@Kumari in his 1st response:

I didn't discount "questioning" as a part of my previous statement. To separate philosophy into two halves is to not understand the whole. Questioning is merely the beginning. What I spoke of was finding an ending to what you have begun, as you did agree with, but didn't quite understand where I was coming from initially. To relate this back to the Matrix, "With every beginning, there is an end."

---

Ultimately spectre i thought tawa was talking about "philosophy; exploring questions". Perhaps i was wrong. In which case i totally agree.

---

I never commented on what you thought Taw was talking about. You specifically said in your statement "To me philosophy is about ..." I was merely pointing out that at some point there should be an end, conclusion, self-assertion, belief, faith, understanding; call it what you will. It is a meaningless existence to seek answers to questions, but never have any answers yourself.

BTW, I am not accusing you of anything. Just expanding the breadth of the discussion


@Indy11

---

Philosophy is a quest for answers.

---

Not quite. As humans we seek answers, why? Because it is our nature? No. Our nature is to survive and do what we must to survive, as all nature does. Then why do we seek answers? It is to better ourselves beyond nature and seek a better way to live our own lives. The first question of someone breaking the boundaries of nature is "Is there more than just this?"

Philosophy is a quest for answers, we want answers for a reason. And that reason is different in all of us, but ultimately it shapes how we live our lives.


@Kumari in his 2nd response posted while I was writing to his 1st.

First off, that is a rediculous philosophical story. It assumes there are no alternatives. Secondly:

---

I believe the reason for such a philosophical discussion is not so much the conclusions you draw but the thoughts and feelings that come from the question.

---

Socrates was the originator of "Question everything." To his benefit, he sought answers in places most people made assumptions. But when it came to the end of his life, he had made no decisions or reasonable assertions concerning any matters of life, himself or the world. He kept asking questions even when the answer was available instead of asserting (concluding) any stance on anything. People call him a great thinker, but in reality he wasn't. He just asked a lot of questions. People like him never solve anything, they ponder until they can ponder no longer. If not for Plato, no one would have ever heard of Socrates.

And my previous response at the top of this post goes along with this one, I just hadn't known you wrote a second statement. "It is a meaningless existence to seek answers to questions, but never have any answers yourself."


Sir Spectre


... No more signature. <-----Irony

Edited by - Sir Spectre on 16-11-2003 04:52:42

@Kumari,

Well, perhaps not to arrive at a definitive conclusion but in your hypothetical an appreciation of a number of different outcomes go into the process to try to find the most suitable answer for one's self.

In your puzzle, the problem solving goal is unstated, obviously. Were you to apply a goal, say, survival, a different answer would obtain, i.e. leave the child on the island as the two adults are likely the stronger to survive the boat journey. (This assumes of course that the adulst are young enough to make more kids)

@SnS,

And therein lies another quest.

Edited by - Indy11 on 16-11-2003 04:37:42

uhg i really don't like this. Mis-understandings suck.

---

What I spoke of was finding an ending to what you have begun, as you did agree with, but didn't quite understand where I was coming from initially.

---

point taken thanks.

---

...an appreciation of a number of different outcomes go into the process to try to find the most suitable answer...

---

That's exactly what i was trying to bring out. It's such a subtle point. What i guess i was trying to promote was not a truth but an attitude or belief. It's possible (when drawing conclusions) to warp the validity of those conclusions and invalidate other possible outcomes. At the same time it's difficult to find a perfect conclusion without all the evidence (which - chances are - nobody has). Indy you seem to be saying that the fittest members of the company should be given the best chance to survive therefore heightening the total chance for survival. It's an interesting avenue (if not the only one or the best one) in my opinion. I didn't mean to include the need for reproduction in my puzzle. It was to be a short boat trip. But it doesn't matter of course

My experience in duscussing philosophy is that people bring up ideas (which are never perfect) and everybody already knows that. The people in the discussion discuss the merrits of these ideas until the merrits run out A more opposite kind of approach would be to spend your efforts pointing out where every presented idea breaks down. Essentially taking the opportunity to point out where people are wrong.

I favour the former. I don't appreciate the latter.
I think we're closer to the latter around here.

Sometimes there are blanket statements which (even if only by grammatical structure) pretend to hold some kind of dominant or superior value over other views on the same topic. I'm not sure if that's the best description but anyway... such statements offend me and i hope they can be kept to a minimum.

Sorry i have to be so negative.

kumari --- "You are ALL my brothers and sisters."

Edited by - kumari on 16-11-2003 07:19:05

@Kumari

---

such statements offend me and i hope they can be kept to a minimum.

---

We're back to being offended again ... okay ... *takes off shoes, and begins tip toeing through the thread*

This seems to be your way of describing your preferred manner of discussion:

---

The people in the discussion discuss the merrits of these ideas until the merrits run out
&
A more opposite kind of approach would be to spend your efforts pointing out where every presented idea breaks down.

I favour the former. I don't appreciate the latter.
I think we're closer to the latter around here.

---

Your way: Discuss, examine, re-examine, discuss again, feel good, discuss, re-re-examine, discuss yet another time. Conclusion: "That was a good discussion."

My way: Discuss, examine, find solutions, conclude. Conclusion: If it works--Done. If it doesn't work--Submit a new discussion.

Now I'm going to relate this to art. There was a study on aspiring, College-going pottery artists some time ago. The students were told that they could get a passing grade one of two ways.

1: They could make one perfect piece of pottery art with the utmost care and craftmanship. They had the whole semester to do it.
2: The students could make many pottery sculptures and be graded on quantity with some emphasis on quality.

Conclusion:
1. The majority of the students who set out to make only one piece ended up with poor grades because they never allowed themselves to learn their craft. They sought perfection on the first go, without experience to help aid their creative process, even if experience meant making mistakes.

2. The students who made many pottery sculptures, while some were complete crap, did have a high percentage of good and excellent quality sculptures. Because they didn't let the idea of perfection stop them from doing what they needed. And eventually they made some perfect pottery because they learned from experience not just by pondering one absolute perfect example.




Sir Spectre


... No more signature. <-----Irony

Edited by - Sir Spectre on 16-11-2003 08:15:17

hnnggghhh my head, i feel like im learning something nnnoooooo

i'm back in this thread and it seems like were not talking about anything interesting....cya


"it has to start somewhere, it has to start sometime, what better place than here, what better time than now"

so when do we get to talk about it openly with the spoilers?

---

We're back to being offended again ... okay ... *takes off shoes, and begins tip toeing through the thread*

---

Is that how you see it? In that case don't bother. I've given up trying to explain myself for now. I'll just keep out of your way.

kumari --- "You are ALL my brothers and sisters."

@Kumari

---

Indy you seem to be saying that the fittest members of the company should be given the best chance to survive therefore heightening the total chance for survival. It's an interesting avenue (if not the only one or the best one) in my opinion. I didn't mean to include the need for reproduction in my puzzle. It was to be a short boat trip. But it doesn't matter of course

---

Umm. No. That's not what I was saying. I said that a goals statement was missing from your puzzle. If such a statement were to have been included, such as survival, etc., etc., and whatnot.

I really don't know that we differ that much. It seems more a matter of our respective "insertion points." I do not pretend to know which of us is upstream from the other.

A number of extra parameters such as goal state have not been specified. The puzzle was not meant to be "a puzzle". It was not meant for discussion. I just wanted to give an example of different kinds of conclusions. I think some are quite important and others are not so much.

I'm sorry Indy some of your sentences aren't clear to me. In response: I agree that there's only so far you can take the "puzzle" without specifying a goal.

kumari --- "You are ALL my brothers and sisters."