What's your favorite aspect of philosophy?

[AirRick101]

Yeah, subject. Favorite type of philsopher, favorite writings from famous philosophers, or famous philosophers themselves? I'm interesting in looking for extracurricular study on the general subject, just to feed my mind.

[Roller]

My personal fave (and mind you, I'm no philosophy expert) is Descartes; Cogito, ergo sum or 'I think, therefore I am.' To me this embodies the whole idea of philosophy, and something I now try and live my life around. To me it grasps the whole meaning of human thought; I think therefore I am which flows through to 'the more I think, the more I am'. In my opinion if a person goes through their life without thinking about the world around them, questioning things, being curious and eager to learn more then in a way they haven't really lived. That's not saying they were dull robots, but in my opinion someone that does seek to explore life, the world and the universe around them is much more alive and is much more of a being... Those five words have changed my life and my understanding of it more than most other stuff I ever learnt in school. I haven't as yet got around to seriously reading anything by Descartes, but I plan to son.

[Universal Mind]

My favorite question of all time-- "Why is there something instead of nothing?" My favorite philosopher is Lao Tzu, the author of the Tao Te Ching and the founder of Taoism. He is the one person I know of who might have actually answered the question correctly. "Being and nonbeing create each other." It has something to do with relativity and the nonnecessity of a cause of nonexistence. Well, I guess that is not a full answer, but it is the closest anybody I know of has come. I also love trying to explain human behavior by relating it to ape evolution.

[Nirvana Starseed]

"I think therefore I am" is actually one of the greatest false statements ever made. It is one of the great misconceptions. Its not that thinking is what is making you exist. You exist despite your thinking. The correct version of this concept is. "I am that I am" What you are is beingness therefore you are. My favourite aspect of philosphy is the part where you try and find out the truth. Since the entire purpose of the subject is designed to serve part of that process. Oscar Wilde was an interesting character and William blake wrote some good stuff.

[Nirvana Starseed]

"Why is there something instead of nothing?" That is a great question for contemplation..... I think what Lao Tzu was getting at when he said (who is he? a philosopher apparantly) "Being and nonbeing create each other." That interelationship at the deepest level. The somethingness IS actually the nothingness. It is all part of the same thing. Which expands to know itself. The duality is the diversity of what it is. I was once told by someone to think of nothingness. I thought he was a nut. What good would that do? What is so great about nothingness? Why should I keep thinking about it? its just......nothingness....... Or Is it? what do you think it is? That contemplation he was trying to suggest is in the direction of expanding your consiousness though the realization of what it is. Truth has a way of shocking you in unexpected ways. Like it is stranger than fiction.

[O-Nieronaut]

Originally posted by NirvanaStarseed \"I think therefore I am\" is actually one of the greatest false statements ever made. It is one of the great misconceptions. Its not that thinking is what is making you exist. You exist despite your thinking. The correct version of this concept is. \"I am that I am\" What you are is beingness therefore you are. My favourite aspect of philosphy is the part where you try and find out the truth. Since the entire purpose of the subject is designed to serve part of that process. Oscar Wilde was an interesting character and William blake wrote some good stuff. I disagree. Your explanation seems to propose that the self is nothing more than what it is made of. I belive that awareness of self, the feedback loop between perception, cognition, and action, the awareness of (illusionary) seperateness from the rest of the universe, is what is implied by the idea of the self. Without duality, without the power of distinction, without cognition, you do not exist apart from the whole. Whith this illusion in place, however, you certainly do seem to exist, ergo sum. I would have to say that mentation and conceptualization are my favorite parts of philosophy.

[Roller]

The basic reasoning behind 'I think therefore I am' is this: Descartes was answering quite a daunting question; how do we know we exist? We might only be illusions, or the figment of someone's imagination. Descartes wondered that everything he sees and feels and does might actually be the trick of a deamon (or something) that was out to fool him into thinking he existed. He wanted to know how he could prove to himself that he in fact existed. He reached the conclusion 'I think therefore I am'. He knows that he must exist because he is thinking, and wondering about his own existence. The proof that he exists lies in the fact that he is thinking. So yes, while we exist without and despite our thinking, it is the sole reliable proof that we exist.

[quantumparity]

Why is it nature to breath once we're born to oxygen. Why are we afraid of death at birth. Where the in the hell do monsters come from. Why are most kids afraid of darkness. It seems babies sleep more in the day then they do night, sometimes they do sometimes they cry, or most of the time. Kids make this stuff up, or not. I have a lot of favorite philosophers, Rene Descartes one of them, and any dude who supports Yin-Yang also. Taoism is good. Lofti Zadeh the guy that did the fuzzy logic sets, will be remembered for his logic system, that is being put toward AI tech. There is a lot of good philosophers, and when there stupid, you will know.

[Goady]

Not sure if it would be considered a philosophy, but 2 things that intrigue me the most are bushido and ancient chinese proverbs. There are various different documents you could look up as pertaining to bushido; i suggest starting with gorin no sho (book of five rings, originally written by miyamoto musashi). Musashi was a little different from samurai in his time, but maybe thats why he never lost a single duel in his life(only tied once). If you want a more detailed account of all the things surrounding bushido as a whole and not just told from one person; take a look at the hagakure. I understand that a lot of bushido coincides with more popular philosophies and philosophers that were no doubt an integral influence in laying the groundwork, but its one of my favorite things to read about; regaurdless of what it was derived from. And as far as ancient chinese proverbs go, take a look at my sig and go from there; im sure youll find more than enough interesting insights in your search for knowledge. *edit* after thinking for a bit i thought of a name that may spark some interest: bodhidharma. He is believed by many to be the father of martial arts, and was a ch'an buddhist.

[dreamtamer007]

The absolutes There are no absolutes is a common way of thinking. If there is a chair and you decide to sit on it, is it your imagination or it is real. Our environment being stable and dependable is what makes it real. You could say for all intent and purpose the chair exists or it absolutely is there. If it’s in a dream it is still real because it is a real dream. If it’s your imagination, your imagination is real. If the whole thing, you, the chair and everything else is just in the mind of some space being or thought process we are not aware of it’s still what it is and absolutely exists as apposed to nothing.

[Doc Holliday]

Existentialism. Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Hiedeggar, Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky and (arguably ) Aristotle. The best stuff out there. Live Passionately. There are many who say its a depressing form of philosophy, but its merely because they misunderstand its teachings. How can the study of existence, thus the Existen-tialism, be sad and depressing?! This branch of philosophy comes highly recommended to Oneironauts, because of our constant thought of reality and perception.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by NirvanaStarseed \"I think therefore I am\" is actually one of the greatest *false statements ever made. It is one of the great misconceptions. Its not that thinking is what is making you exist. You exist despite your thinking. The correct version of this concept is. \"I am that I am\" What you are is beingness therefore you are. Neither are valid. You can't have a self-referential proof. You can't prove that you exist by using your existance as proof. You have to start somewhere else or it's just mental masturbation My favorite aspect of philosophy is logic.

[Roller]

Originally posted by kimpossible You can't prove that you exist by using your existance as proof. 'I am therefore I am' certainly isn't valid, but in my opinion 'I think therefore I am' is. It uses your own conscious thinking as proof that there must be an 'I' or being of some sort. Even if I was a computer program (ala The Matrix) and everything I saw in the world was fed to me through this computer program, by consciously thinking I know that I exist, because by consciously thinking I have changed from a computer program to a being.

[kimpossible]

But you are presupposing the existance of "I" to prove the existance of "I" Maybe you could get away with "That person overthere thinks, so they are"

[Roller]

Originally posted by kimpossible But you are presupposing the existance of \"I\" to prove the existance of \"I\" Hmm yeah I see what you're saying, but I look at it this way: When you're trying to prove something, you look for evidence of it. Of course saying that 'I am, therefore I am' is a pseudo mind-fuck of circular reasoning, but 'I think' is different. The fact you are thinking is evidence of a conscious being. EDIT: Maybe it should be changed to "if there is thought then there must be a being" or something similar... that gets rid of the presupposition.

[kimpossible]

Let's run with that.... How do you know *you* are thinking when you haven't yet proved *your* existance? You assume your existance, then state that the assumption of your existance proves your existance because you thought about it, but have yet to prove you exist in order to have any consciousness. Yes, it's circular reasoning and requires a leap that can't logically be made. And all the "good" philosophers were also logicians...

[Roller]

Well no, the assumption of my existence doesn't prove I exist, the thinking about my existence does. The simple act of thinking is evidence that there must be something there to do it. Whatever it is that does this thinking, I classify it as 'me'.

[kimpossible]

but how do you know that it's not someone else thinking that your thinking and therefore the construct that is "you" in "their head" is lead to believe it's thinking 'cause they think it's thinking?

[Roller]

Hmm ok... Well I would define 'myself' as those collections of thoughts, even if the physical 'me' did not exist. I guess it depends on whether you define your identity by your body or your thoughts and conscious mind. It could probably result in a technical argument about what constitutes a 'being'. Ok, let's say we have a person with a split mind. In this mind dwell two 'people' or identities... one of these identities thinks it's a black lesbian and the other thinks it is a white male mormon. If both of these identities are fully conscious (in a coma land or something), then yes they are both beings as long as they think independently. So if someone was imagining me, and imagining me thinking then yes I would still exist as a 'being' - a collection of thought with an identity. I'm not sure if that is the correct definition of 'being' seeing as I don't have a dictionary with me so correct me if I'm wrong.

[dreamtamer007]

Originally posted by Roller Hmm ok... Ok, let's say we have a person with a split mind. In this mind dwell two 'people' or identities... one of these identities thinks it's a black lesbian and the other thinks it is a white male mormon. If both of these identities are fully conscious (in a coma land or something), then yes they are both beings as long as they think independently. * You may be very close to the truth about consciousness. I've read that the conciseness itself may be due to having two minds. A memory that remembers memory, thought that thinks about thinking and so on.

[quantumparity]

Originally posted by dreamtamer007 You may be very close to the truth about consciousness. I've read that the conciseness itself may be due to having two minds. A memory that remembers memory, thought that thinks about thinking and so on. Take what you see now narrow it down to what your mind is percieving and it goes into memory, taking of info into memory is constant, memory is sometimes forgoten. There is how you get your subconscious dreams. Then you can take the subconscious and apply laws to create the identity, and have consciousness. I think you're right. It is always hard to say what is real, the subconscious or conscious. True love is made by doubt and hate, and vice versa making them equal. Definition is existance. Everything has definition, but you are conscious if you realize that and react to it. I'm studying Cognitive science, Neurology.

[dreamtamer007]

When I was young I used to only think about things. It wasn’t until I developed problems did I start to consider the workings of man. Unlike the dog that gives up after a wile of tail chasing, humans seem to believe they can dissect themselves. Time will tell.

[Awaken4e1]

I love seeing grown people act like children trying to prove their opinion, when by definition (an opinion) is entirely subjective to the individual. P.S. I also glean much of human nature in the process. The Rev.

[AirRick101]

You sadist! no, i'm just kidding. Oftentimes, adults act severely less enlightened than kids. It's because they don't know how to let go.

[Awaken4e1]

Originally posted by AirRick101 You sadist! no, i'm just kidding. Oftentimes, adults act severely less enlightened than kids. It's because they don't know how to let go. :bravo: