For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
But why act so aloof, god like? Albeit a nasty one. Hey teacher, are you here to feel better at another's expense, or is it enough to just teach instead? You know, to be helpful to someone.chaz wyman wrote:Oh dear --- I feel an 'unsubscribe' coming on.
I have talked to Mark Q in the past, and have found that his second language being English, presents problems with accurate conveyance, quite possibly in both directions.rantal wrote:Your reply makes no sense
all the best, rantal
is there any reason why they do?SpheresOfBalance wrote:Mark Q: what determines their ability to seek and see?
They do.
that is the question. am i free to seek knowledge, or is there always reasons and causes causing me to do so?Mark Q: where is the freedom if knowledge determines choosing?
Are you free to seek knowledge?
and this new knowledge is coherent with scientific knowledge?Mark Q: knowledge about free will is continuously becoming new? like knowledge about flat earth became new?
And now we know otherwise, so, sure!
and that philosophy is coherent with scientific knowledge?Mark Q: is free will a dogma?
Relatively speaking, yes, it is a philosophy, at least as it's applied. Free will is always relative, and as one makes it, ever more, a part of their active philosophy, their will is ever becoming more free, within the constraints, of what it is, in being currently human, of course.
my english is so bad that it is better than good for testing power of philosophy with bad language and simple sentences: is philosophy rhetorical or logical thinking, poetry?SpheresOfBalance wrote:I have talked to Mark Q in the past, and have found that his second language being English, presents problems with accurate conveyance, quite possibly in both directions.rantal wrote:Your reply makes no sense
all the best, rantal
logical truth like: "almighty (can deside who can see him because he) is almighty" is not universal and self-evident truth?rantal wrote:Your reply makes no sense
all the best, rantal
flat earth is no more of a dogma than round earth?rantal wrote:Free will is no more of a dogma than determinism
all the best, rantal
we will see.rantal wrote:Philosophy really requires a good command of the language
all the best, rantal
Mark Question wrote:This response: SoB in blueMark Q: is there any reason why they do?SpheresOfBalance wrote:Mark Q: what determines their ability to seek and see?
SoB: They do.
I can't speak for everyone, but I see that they do it so as to know. They reason that to be the ultimate human, king of the animals, via tools, that were invented because of what we have come to know, knowledge is the key element, that makes us more capable, successful, and thus live longer, the most desired attribute of all life, to stay death for even a second longer. At least I see this as the crux of the matter. And of course to know in truth, what it is, in being human, at our fullest potential, which requires knowledge of everything, that it is, in being a human, born of this universe.
Mark Q: that is the question. am i free to seek knowledge, or is there always reasons and causes causing me to do so?Mark Q: where is the freedom if knowledge determines choosing?
SoB: Are you free to seek knowledge?
You make distinctions, where I see there are none, you and your reason are one in the same thing, and causes, if you are referring to those internal to the being, are again, the same as you, to reiterate, ones relative level of knowledge, yields their relative level of reason, internal conflict, thus these internal causes, all of which are you, that only you have the ability to reconcile, by expanding your knowledge of self, which encompasses the entire universe, of which you're born.
Mark Q: and this new knowledge is coherent with scientific knowledge?Mark Q: knowledge about free will is continuously becoming new? like knowledge about flat earth became new?
SoB: And now we know otherwise, so, sure!
I see that science is the most accurate implementation of the seeking of knowledge, that mankind has ever used before, and was, of course, a product of our knowledge. Of course I see that science is ever changing, keeping up with our current state of knowledge, thus one of the main reasons why it is the best, yet, method, that man has, to work at understanding himself fully.
Mark Q: and that philosophy is coherent with scientific knowledge?Mark Q: is free will a dogma?
SoB: Relatively speaking, yes, it is a philosophy, at least as it's applied. Free will is always relative, and as one makes it, ever more, a part of their active philosophy, their will is ever becoming more free, within the constraints, of what it is, in being currently human, of course.
As far as I'm concerned, yes, as philosophy is the father of all science, again, as scientific inquiry is the most pure (accurate) method we have ever used to understand the universal truth of things. Remember that science is ever evolving, in pace with current human abilities (evolving). The only time a specific bit of it remains fixed, is when we have decided that it is in fact unwavering knowledge, or while we are presently incapable of furthering it's evolution, or lastly, if no one is actively pushing it's boundaries.
Either that or a good command of the game Ouzo.rantal wrote:Philosophy really requires a good command of the language.
No, that's of no use or relevance in philosophybobevenson wrote:Either that or a good command of the game Ouzo.rantal wrote:Philosophy really requires a good command of the language.
Are you suggesting that spiritual insight into the human condition is not relevant to philosophy?rantal wrote:No, that's of no use or relevance in philosophy
I'm sure you're aware that I was not slighting you, in any way. I have the utmost respect for those that know and speak in more than one language. As my dumb-ass, can barely handle one. I just realize that sometimes it's hard to breach the language barrier, effectively. I was actually trying to give you an out, in the eyes of those, that may view you otherwise.Mark Question wrote:my english is so bad that it is better than good for testing power of philosophy with bad language and simple sentences: is philosophy rhetorical or logical thinking, poetry?SpheresOfBalance wrote:I have talked to Mark Q in the past, and have found that his second language being English, presents problems with accurate conveyance, quite possibly in both directions.rantal wrote:Your reply makes no sense
all the best, rantal
i found this test with my native language or father tonque.
bobevenson wrote:Are you suggesting that spiritual insight into the human condition is not relevant to philosophy?rantal wrote:No, that's of no use or relevance in philosophy