Printable View
Would like to hear your thoughts on this! I've got the first three - always subject to change, though. What would be the ideal ten first questions for someone just getting into philosophy?
1 Who am I?
2 What is the meaning of life?
3 Why is there something, instead of nothing?
....
Maybe we'll end up with a hundred or something!
You should start with 4. What is philosophy? in the first place! :) and there is answer: Philosophy is understanding of things.
5. What is understanding? - knowledge about particular thing
6. What is knowledge? - all the facts about particular thing
7. What is fact? - piece of true information
8. What is true? - something real confirmed by observing behaviour that is based on experiments that can be proved, and is organized into a system
Now you can apply this on 1. Who are you?
This question is pretty meaningless. What does one mean by 'meaning of life'? Can you be sure that there even is a meaning?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehat
The other two seem good though.
I disagree with this. Is understanding how my computer works philosophy? Of course not. You need to specify the kind of thing you're trying to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nfri
As my first serious attempt at defining philosophy it seems the kinds of questions that philosophy tends to focus on have the following properties:
1. The answer cannot be found empirically.
2. There is no obvious way the answer can be found deductively.
3. They are related to the basic assumptions we hold about our realities.
Why not? I think of course yes... It doesn't matter if it is a consciousness, computer, word meaning or a pencil. Philosophy is understanding the things. What it is and how it is related to your life. How it works is also the part of the philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva
1. Yes it can be found empirically based on your experience from observation and experimentation.Quote:
1. The answer cannot be found empirically.
2. There is no obvious way the answer can be found deductively.
3. They are related to the basic assumptions we hold about our realities.
2. There is obvious way the answer can be found deductively. The only problem is that it fits to certain enviroment for certain people. That means the philosphy is not universal and can be make tailored on purpose.
3. Basic assumptions are starting part of the custom philosophy
Aren't these questions more like the last questions of philosophy? It seems to me that if they were answered, the rest would seem rather petty ... :)
Anyway, from time to time I've pondered this one: "What is the difference between something, and nothing?"
True nothing is impossible. So word nothing is in your question nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voldmer
False nothing is for example chair in the room. If you remove the chair from the room there is nothing left. The difference is that chair is not there anymore.
I think you are going over the question too superficially. Let me rephrase it somewhat by using an example: What is the difference between existence of the universe, and non-existence of the universe? Merely thinking about non-existence of the universe is mind-blowing ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nfri
Non-existence of the universe is impossible. So this your mind-blowing thinking doesn't have anyting to do with ''non-existence''. I don't know why people make philosophy so confusing when some questions are simple and there are rational simple answer to them. I think people have this prejudice that philosophy is something permanent and unsolvable what I think is bad attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voldmer
I totally agree.. Nothing is simply something. Not so hard to understand at all.:)Quote:
I don't know why people make philosophy so confusing when some questions are simple and there are rational simple answer to them.
Try to imagine that you remove everything from the universe, bit by bit, until there is only empty space left.
Now remove the space ...
Space is simply removed by filling it up by something. So If you want to get rid of space it self. you fill it up to get rid of it. So this removed space now becomes something.Quote:
Now remove the space ...
If you fill up the space, you are simply undoing the first step, which was to remove everyting from the space. So that doesn't actually attempt to take the second step of removing the space.
If you remove everything from a room, then you have an empty room. If you then fill up the room with lots of stuff, then you haven't removed the room itself; it is still there!
You are the man that believe that you can remove everyting from the space, I'm the man who believe that it is impossible remove everyting from the space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voldmer
I understand what you are trying to say Voldmer. But the thing is thats just an idea of ones imagination. But what I try to say, is that there is always an opposite to everything.Quote:
If you fill up the space, you are simply undoing the first step, which was to remove everyting from the space. So that doesn't actually attempt to take the second step of removing the space.
If we say that we want to remove the space from the space. Then there will be another space after the removed space. But if we really want to get rid of space, then we must fill it up completely. The same goes for this example wich is the same thing: We can't go up beyond "the up" it's just up or down. Or if we dont want to go up, there is other directions, but we cant go beyond the directions that is perceived by the mind. We can stay still, but there is still directions available if we dont choose to deny that of cource. It's up to you what you want to believe or not believe in the end.:)
I don't necessarily believe that; for me it's a philosophical question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nfri
There are several comments, that I would like to say to that. (i) So far science has been unable to find an opposite to the gravitational force. And it's not like people haven't been looking for it. (ii) If we remove a space, then surely what would be left would not be another space, but instead a negative space (whatever that is). (iii) Although you could argue, that by filling up a space you remove it, this is not what I had in mind originally, when I talked about removing first everything from a space, and then finally removing the space itself. Instead, as I pointed out before, filling the space up again simply undoes the space emptying process.Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamyBear
If you take the currently most favoured idea amongst some physicists, the universe was created out of nothing. Meaning, prior to the Big Bang, the universe wasn't there - including the space it now occupies. I don't personally believe that hypothesis, but a bloke like Stephen Hawking certainly does.
That could be the opposite of gravity maybe.. But I have to say the same about that as you did (whatever that is). Maybe the opposite of gravity is simply no gravity? Or maybe there is no opposite to gravity at all. But that would be a rare thing though, maybe that could be possible in some way. How ever I have no clue about that. so back to the nitty-gritty with your original thought.Quote:
So far science has been unable to find an opposite to the gravitational force. And it's not like people haven't been looking for it. (ii) If we remove a space, then surely what would be left would not be another space, but instead a negative space (whatever that is).
The difference about the two in my opinion is this. The existence of the universe is something we can perceive. But the idea of a "non-existence" of the universe is more of a confusing idea to the mind, since it lack substance to reality if thats what we now are going for. If we imagine there is nothing there, then what's not there is a thought produced by pure imagination.Quote:
What is the difference between existence of the universe, and non-existence of the universe?
Let's say that there is a possibility of a "no space" no universe left, everything is gone, incuding space itself. Then that idea of "nothing", would not even be abel to be called "nothing", and not even be possible to explain or thought about in the first place. Because that "nothing" cant be related to anything within our thoughts then. So it's basically like a state of totall unconsciousness then.
If we even cant percieve a space itself, then there is just unconsciousness left I would say.
I somewhat agree, but given it has been one of the most often asked question in human history and one of the primary driving factors and inspiration for so much human accomplishment that I think it is unfair to just toss it out like that, it's too fundamental.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva