Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy is contradiction, it is organized insanity. The deeper the knowledge the deeper the insanity for the depths of knowing reveal a solitary idea or experience that stands apart from all others as an outcast, an outlier, that is by definition of what it means to be mad.

Now, philosophy in a nutshell...or better put knowledge in a nutshell.

A person expresses an idea.

Another person disagrees.

Another person disagrees with that person.

Very simple and obvious.

Now,

Someone will disagree with this and this only justifies the above point. Someone else will agree to this and again only justify the above point.

This may lead to the conclusion that philosophy is madness...and it may be true...or not...and that is part of the madness. But what may further be said is that philosophy exposes the human condition as competing states of insanity for the love of knowledge is a human endeavor and what greater knowledge is there than experience and what is more insane than the raw occurence of an impression. What could be more insane than just the raw occurence of a thing?

Some will argue that this is all part of a harmonious order and then people will agree....until they all come up with competing interpretations of how or what this order occurs and yet they will fail to realize that for all the order there is at the end of the day it "just is" or it "just occurs".

It "just is" will be their final explanation...but in that note so is all of existence which differs from them where even the notion of "just is" dissolves into "just" and "is" only for these words to dissolve under the weight of scrutiny.

Philosophy is not a contradiction, it was a search for wisdom but now knowledge. What needs to be forgiven the hypothesis? Justification has to be a justified true belief, but the problem with the 'true belief' is that from your own perspective. To be certain challenges the possibility of knowledge.

puto wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:57 am Philosophy is not a contradiction, it was a search for wisdom but now knowledge. What needs to be forgiven the hypothesis? Justification has to be a justified true belief, but the problem with the 'true belief' is that from your own perspective. To be certain challenges the possibility of knowledge.

So certain you are. Un. To phrase para Yoda.

puto wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 7:57 am Philosophy is not a contradiction, it was a search for wisdom but now knowledge. What needs to be forgiven the hypothesis? Justification has to be a justified true belief, but the problem with the 'true belief' is that from your own perspective. To be certain challenges the possibility of knowledge.

Like I said in the thread:

"Someone will disagree with this and this only justifies the above point."

You contradict what I said, thus justifying what I said.

Ah, faith bending, twisting, reason to its will.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 9:55 am Ah, faith bending, twisting, reason to its will.

Philosophy is merely charming the serpent of relativity and hypnotizing it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:32 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 9:55 am Ah, faith bending, twisting, reason to its will.

Philosophy is merely charming the serpent of relativity and hypnotizing it.

I can't disagree. Physics should be immune to metaphysics, except for common sense: science can't do certainty. Common sense can.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:39 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:32 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 9:55 am Ah, faith bending, twisting, reason to its will.

Philosophy is merely charming the serpent of relativity and hypnotizing it.

I can't disagree. Physics should be immune to metaphysics, except for common sense: science can't do certainty. Common sense can.

"Should be" would be pleasantly convenient. But the conundrum of metaphysics, "being que being", is the fundamental noose of existence that underscores both metaphysics and sciences with a paternal bond: observation. This is quite difficult to escape unless you plan to hang in this dominating void and metaphorically come back from the dead.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:45 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:39 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:32 pm

Philosophy is merely charming the serpent of relativity and hypnotizing it.

I can't disagree. Physics should be immune to metaphysics, except for common sense: science can't do certainty. Common sense can.

"Should be" would be pleasantly convenient. But the conundrum of metaphysics, "being que being", is the fundamental noose of existence that underscores both metaphysics and sciences with a paternal bond: observation. This is quite difficult to escape unless you plan to hang in this dominating void and metaphorically come back from the dead.

LOL! God that's deep. And I am shallow. Thank God! Observation eh? I shall mull that for more years than I have left. Well I would, but. I use infinity as a scythe that serves me well. Beyond observation. Do you mean we observe ourselves observing? Intentionality? Another way of escaping it is by being thick. Dim. I just don't see the problem. Science can only do sigmas of probability. Common sense says fook that, infinity, eternity (infinity along the time number line, presentist or eternalist, it doesn't matter), creates certainties. Infinity cuts William Lane Craig's Kalam rehash of Hume off at the ankles, for example.

"There are mathematical, ethical, logistic and linguistic problems, but there are no genuinely philosophical problems!"

Who said that.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 12:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:45 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 11:39 pm
I can't disagree. Physics should be immune to metaphysics, except for common sense: science can't do certainty. Common sense can.

"Should be" would be pleasantly convenient. But the conundrum of metaphysics, "being que being", is the fundamental noose of existence that underscores both metaphysics and sciences with a paternal bond: observation. This is quite difficult to escape unless you plan to hang in this dominating void and metaphorically come back from the dead.

LOL! God that's deep. And I am shallow. Thank God! Observation eh? I shall mull that for more years than I have left. Well I would, but. I use infinity as a scythe that serves me well. Beyond observation. Do you mean we observe ourselves observing? Intentionality? Another way of escaping it is by being thick. Dim. I just don't see the problem. Science can only do sigmas of probability. Common sense says fook that, infinity, eternity (infinity along the time number line, presentist or eternalist, it doesn't matter), creates certainties. Infinity cuts William Lane Craig's Kalam rehash of Hume off at the ankles, for example.

Science observes the relations of things, primarily the empirical with the empirical being our experience of the observation of the senses. One observes that they observe the senses thus the distinction of the senses, ie the empirical.

Things require distinctions to be things, these distinctions are limits. I observe a car as distinct, that is what makes it a car. I observe the senses as distinct, that is what makes them the senses

To observe is to make a distinction otherwise there is no observation and no thing for the thing is what allows the observe to be and the observe is what allows the thing to be. Why? Observation is distinction, one does the existence without the other.

By observing things distinctions arise and being occurs as being requires distinctions, otherwise there is nothing because there are no limits

Distinction through distinction as distinction: the metaphysics of occurrence and the infinity you value through this fundamental loop. Science makes the distinction that all things are physical, but this physicality is a distinction so now we end in metaphysics.

This is one of many ways of wording part of the dilemma of "science" or "metaphysics". Are they easy to separate? Only at face value.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 1:24 am "There are mathematical, ethical, logistic and linguistic problems, but there are no genuinely philosophical problems!"

Who said that.

Problem is merely another way of stating "opposition" or "contradiction"....and there are many contradictory notions of contradiction.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 1:24 am "There are mathematical, ethical, logistic and linguistic problems, but there are no genuinely philosophical problems!"

Who said that.

Someone of course...names are irrelevant...Noone owns the truth...but what if they did? Would they not be subservient to truth and thus be untrue? If untrue hold could they truly hold it?

Philosophy is corporeal fantasy.

A concept explored in philosophy and spiritual practices, where the physical, material existence is viewed as a kind of "fantasy" or illusion. It suggests that our sensory experiences and perceptions create a subjective reality that may not be the ultimate truth.

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 3:49 pm Philosophy is corporeal fantasy.

A concept explored in philosophy and spiritual practices, where the physical, material existence is viewed as a kind of "fantasy" or illusion. It suggests that our sensory experiences and perceptions create a subjective reality that may not be the ultimate truth.

Thanks for the philosophical statement.....