Oh... sorry...
I'll stop then...
:cry:
Printable View
Have you been to a university lately? In my classes, we did cover Spinoza. We did read parts of his book, but not the whole thing.
Are you actually saying that Spinoza's theory is still regarded as a viable one in the 21th century? I believe that is not the case, silly man. As I said, for his time, Spinoza was a brilliant man. But the things there were brilliant and revolutionary in the 17th century are accepted and common-sense in the 21th. Thanks to people like Spinoza. That doesn't mean the entire whole of Spinoza's work is to be seen as a credible theory in the light of 350 years of philosophy behind him, that did not always agree with him.
I do seriously hope that you don't waste to much of your time reading 17th century philosophy. I mean, if you have the abundance of time, by all means do so, for the historical perspective. I don't want to rest my argument of the authority of Universities, and the direction they are taking the last 50-40 years, but I do think there are great reasons why they -not completely surprising- developed a different worldview than pre-1900 philosophers. I hope you keep up with modern-day philosophy as well, for instance the incredibly interesting recent advances in Philosophy of Mind.
Plainly said, either all most all modern-day academic philosophers are completely wrong, or Spinoza, as Plato and Kant, are nothing more than people who greatly attributed to developing a better way of thinking, but are in the end not likely to be correct or even slightly viable in their theories (like Plato's 'Ideas'). Since modern day philosophy rests more on advances in other fields of science (philosophy of mind for instance, on neurobiology/evolution), I am going to go with them, among other reasons.
Well then, if you believe that modern day philosophy lies in the sciences, you must not be a student of philosophy. Personally I would think someone arguing from a seemingly naturalistic point of view would hold Plato's 'ideas' close to heart, since it is one of the last remnants of thought that actually supports objectivism (as modern science certainly does not). Like I said, can you actually show me where Spinoza was wrong? Can you show me where any of the philosophers you are attempting to undermine are wrong? I'm not necessarily saying they are all 100% correct on every point, just that something in me doubts you are capable of refuting them.
"There is no significant proof that cigarettes cause cancer." - Paid scientific fraud
Um, lets be honest here Juroara, knowledge was kept away from women and black people for many many years...the reason there haven't been many of them in the past (assuming that there haven't been, I haven't looked at the gender and race card on the nobel prize list) is because women and black people honestly were ignorant in the past...
I could of course refute Plato with Spinoza, refute Spinoza with Kant, and refute Kant with Plato. Since all three theories are so very very infallible. According to you.
Did you or do you study philosophy at a university? You seem to have a very chronologically-handicapped idea about philosophy. An idea that many outsiders or 'hobby-philosophers' have. The idea that the main things you study when you study philosophy are antique philosophers from Anaxagoras to Nietzsche. Even if you don't go into the history-direction, learning about the antique philosophers is very important. Same with students of politicology, that certainly should understand the history of politics. That doesn't mean Roman-Aristocracy play a major role in contemporary political theories.
I am kind of surprised almost everyone knows or heard about Plato, Kant or Nietzsche, but hardly anyone heard about the 20th century philosopher John Rawls, while 80% of the political parties in Europe somewhere in their party-'constitutions' refer to Rawls for their philosophical foundation of Pluralistic-Liberalism (what basically all democratic parties are). Why don't people know Rawls, while they do know far less relevant people like Socrates? Have you heard about Rawls? Or of Searle or Dennet or Churchland? Then you should take a first year philosophy course, with all due respect. I hope that you do know them and more, knowing the Philosophy of today would certainly make you more credible in your claims of the philosophy of the past.
Philosophy, if you actually go work on it at a university (not like I am planning to), is not about Spinoza or Plato. Unless if your subject is history of philosophy, which is completely different from actual philosophy that is happing now. You arn't going to mix Kant and Spinoza, and create a new theory that specialists all over the world accept. The professional philosophers active now, creating theories and writing books, are for the most part materialists, and even if they are not, seldom use anything pre-1900 as anything but illustrations.
Also, since about 1850, philosophy is regarded a part of science, or even the main element of science. Not just a separate field where people may believe whatever they want if it is correct with their or form of logics. I could now challenge you to deny -since probably you 'dogmatically' (irony) don't accept it as true- the 'great logic' (it actually is great, it just leads to nonsense) of Wittgenstein (1), but that would just be a waste of our time.
Oh, you want me to refute Spinoza?
His argumentation for the infinity of matter:
I disagree with 1 by lack of proof for that claim.Quote:
(1) Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
(2) and further depend on 1.
Black people are indeed simply oppressed and kept away from knowledge and proper education. For only since about 40 years black people have a chance to get education (almost) on par with what white people can get, if those black people are very very lucky to escape the socially lesser environment they ended up in, being minorities in the western countries. I see no reason why, since America finally at least is close to a black president, black people will play a bigger and bigger role in the scientific community. They certainly don't lack potential.
As for women, those are just less intelligent.
So you think they actually go in depth in real philosophy in Universities? AHAHHAA. I've had this discussion with someone on these forums before, and the conclusion was that my school just has a shitty philosophy department, but philosophy is about thinking for yourself, not having someone teach you it. I've come to know most of what I do about philosophy from reading, reflecting and discussion. The 2 philosophy classes I've taken had little to no impact on my thinking. The morals class did make me think about a few real problems, like how we really shouldn't send so much aid to starving countries, but rather try to find a way to solve the problem. It's like putting a band aid on a broken arm.
If you want to read some real philosophy, check out Robert Anton Wilson.
Lack of proof is not disproof. You can disagree if you want, but you thats different from refuting something.
By the way if you want people to take you seriously, you shouldn't make extremely ignorant comments at the end of your post.
To be honest I think you'll find that it's roughly proportional to the amount of women or black people eligible for a nobel prize. Those two groups, especially black people I seem to remember, are quite underepresented in science. I guess it's getting better, although perhaps there are some biological reasons for women, as it's been shown they have poorer visualisation skills which are quite necessary for breakthroughs in physics at the very least.
Probably I used to much insults in this post, and you'll be all like "Ohh, Mr Skeptic is at it again, he doesn't know the prettiness of the soul and magical rainbow land." But try not to stick your head up that ass for a moment, and reflect on the clearly wrong ideas you have and had in the past. Lets try to think about how much truth there is in your claims. You are seemingly making more absolute claims about things than the hardest atheists (learn to write it already, aetheist), because even the hardest atheist and materialists say that what they believe is just so because of the abundance of evidence in favor of their theories, but that the evidence might be deceiving. There might be a god, I just think the chance is motherfuckingly small. How many of those fucking idiots, 'really' and 'cyclic' and you, would even for the slightest moment think that their bullshit about souls and perfection and whatever is indeed bullshit, and that everything is indeed materialistic? Nooo... you don't. "Emotions are too complex to be just a bunch of switches.", that kind of absolutist shit-statement. Yeah. No chance is hell YOU are wrong. You have the devine truth. Cuz you feel it man, you juz feels it in ya soul!
Okay, lets face it, you are a retard. I really tried, but you are simply a retard.
'Lack of proof is not disproof' does not mean true believing something for which there is no proof doesn't make you a complete retard. It does. There is no proof that black people are inferior. So? You didn't dispove it. Yet, killing black people would make you a fucking retard. As would believing masturbating publicly pleases god. There is no proof of that, but hey. It's not disproven! The thing I keep repeating and you keep ignoring is that you have as much proof for holding your bullcrap-beliefs for truth as nazi's and public masturbaters have, and that makes you a retard too. The fact you think you can go around believing things for which there is no proof (but no disprove too, *giggles*) is completely and fuckingly retarded. There is no ultimate disproving anything. (As Russel illustrated with his teacup-in-space, something you don't know about.) That doesn't mean believing certain things makes you an retard.
That your 'school' that had philosophy sucks is not surprising, since I am guessing right now your elementary school wasn't exactly top-of-the-nation too. To bad you don't have access to proper education.
Saying universities do not provide a proper environment for studying philosophy is just plain retarded. Are you going to do physics too outside of universities? Just teach yourself that? Yeah. Those dogmatic evil universities, what do they know?
Really, what you hold to be philosophy is an insult to Popper and the current-day philosophers that all try to do proper science, unless you who are just making retarded claims. A few retarded claims you made:
Big fat stupid claim. There is no way possible for you to be a rational person and believe that statement to be the absolute truth. (We simply do not know.) Where upon do you base this claim? On how it appears to you, a noob when it comes to psychology and neuro-science? If I were you, I wouldn't trust absolutist judgments I make in those fields. Then again, why think about something for more than two seconds? You might get tired.
lol. Spinoza would tell you to go suck an imaginary cock. As would Hume. As would Kant. As would all modern-day philosophers. I asked you in two different topics why other people's 'really true' experiences aren't enough proof to believe their bullshit. Why didn't you answer? Because you don't have the slightest bit of rationality in you. Every sane person, and thus hundreds of philosophers have found out, that since all kind of people have all kind of 'very true' experiences, you shouldn't trust them. You are a retard for thinking 'an OBE' is proof of anything, and I am not exaggerating here. Seriously, read some Hume on this or something.
Where the FUCK are those claims based upon? Do you think idiots that refer to the pineal gland as the 3rd eye have the slightest knowledge of the human brain? Why do you accept their retarded propositions without thinking them through? Where is their proof or argumentation? Maybe your cock is the 3rd eye, there is as much proof for that. Do you even know who first proposed the pineal gland to have some relevance to a 'soul'? Now you don't, because you don't know anything about those things. It was Descartes. And what would he do? Take a big fat shit on that post of yours. But hey, sounds really cool. Lets 'personally believe' the pineal gland has to do with the soul. That sounds awesome. What I 'personally believe' doesn't have to be looked upon sceptically to be sure It isn't nonsense. Unless if you don't want to be retarded.
Clearly you have no desire of becoming smarter. To bad.
It wouldn't be funny if I told in the same post I made that statement in that I was only joking. It would prevent idiots from believing I was serious, while just that is a vital part of the fun of the joke.Quote:
By the way if you want people to take you seriously, you shouldn't make extremely ignorant comments at the end of your post.
You provide some of the most ridiculous examples I've ever seen. Philosophy is about thinking and discussing, why do you have to go to a University to do that? I live in America, maybe Universities are different here. Did you ever think of looking at something from a different perspective? I do it all the time, it's pretty useful. I don't really have time for a discussion on whats wrong with the school systems in America right now.
Do you know anything about DMT? It's the most powerful psychedelic drug in existance. My claims on DMT are based off of scientific research done by Rick Strassman. DMT is released into the brain when you die.
Maybe when you grow up and stop just repetitively insulting the beleif structures of others we can discuss something meaningful. I don't see how you expect me to talk to you about almost anything you say in your post. You really sound like you have some anger issues, you really should try some breathing exercises or something.
Btw, last time I took an IQ test I scored in the 140s, so I don't see why you think you can just decide I'm unintelligent just because you disagree with me.
Xei, no.Quote:
I guess it's getting better, although perhaps there are some biological reasons for women, as it's been shown they have poorer visualisation skills which are quite necessary for breakthroughs in physics at the very least.
Women do have a slight disadvantage, however thats mostly nurture. For example women playing with dolls instead of cars. Various studies show that the sex difference in visualisation can be easily overcome, by playing video games and other stuff. Note the video games have to be shoot' em ups.
This is the attitude that kept women from doing science. Luckly, in subjects like mathematics its nearly 50/50.
P.S. Girls need to play more violent video games.
Also, I disagree that you need visualization to do physics, it very simplified to say that good physicist have good visualization.
Well I could explain that, though It's not a firm beleif of mine, just what I think happens based off of the experiences of people I've talked to who have smoked it. I never have, and until I do I can't really be sure what happens, but the soul leaving the body makes the most sense, and is the conclusion of Rick Strassman, who has done research on it. However it might be that you "see" deeply into your own soul.
When you smoke DMT, you start to have mild visual hallucinations, then you feel a rush of energy shoot up from your Hara(center of gravity) either into your brain, or out through your head depending on who you talk to.
Many people who smoke DMT have OBEs and expereince a reality made up completely of geometric patterns. Many DMT experiences are similar to the religious experiences described by buddhist with a high degree of skill at meditating. THe soul may or may not physically leave the body, but you experience a completely different part of this infinte universe.
Though we can continuosly bicker over weather something unprovable to another person exists or not, or we might look past our differences and try to have a discussion. If you think that a soul does not exist, please read something on it and explain to me what you think happens when you have a DMT experience. I can find the article I wanted to post, so heres this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enaewwcajzY Skip to 1:15.
In my opinion, regardless of souls, DMT is what makes up the afterlife. And a DMT trip is far from nothing as Nerou claims is what the afterlife is.
I was skeptical about the soul and didn't give it much thought until I took psychedelic drugs. Have any of the atheists claiming no soul taken any? I would be happy to hear what you think about them, and how you explain the experience.
Sure, as I said it was only a tentative suggestion. I hadn't heard about the nuture>nature study so thanks, that's quite interesting.Quote:
Xei, no.
Women do have a slight disadvantage, however thats mostly nurture. For example women playing with dolls instead of cars. Various studies show that the sex difference in visualisation can be easily overcome, by playing video games and other stuff. Note the video games have to be shoot' em ups.
This is the attitude that kept women from doing science. Luckly, in subjects like mathematics its nearly 50/50.
P.S. Girls need to play more violent video games.
Also, I disagree that you need visualization to do physics, it very simplified to say that good physicist have good visualization.
Basically lawl.Quote:
I scored in the 140s too, but I didn't take the test on the internet.
Also, it's pretty lame it mention your IQ-score in a discussion.
OH SHI-
Your brain stays alive for 5-10 minutes when you die. Though it might actually get released just before you die, I'm not sure. I think your body knows it's about to die before you actually die, like all the systems don't just shut off all at once, and the brain is probably the last one.
Time is also completely different when under the effects of high doses of psychedelics. A minute can seem like hours. I've never taken DMT so I'm not an experton it, but people I know who have done have all said it was either the best or worst experience in their life.
Well I think it causes your soul to leave your body right before you die, thus sending you to whatever the afterlife is. Thats my opinion on it, but I try to explain it in a way so that someone who doesn't beleive in the afterlife might be able to take something away from it. If I say that you smoke this drug and your soul leaves your body, then neruo or drewmandan will immedietly say thats pure bullshit without even considering what I'm saying.
If I'm wrong about the existance of a soul, then I think at the very least I will have an intense psychedlic trip, thus creating the illusion of an afterlife, so either way I'm happy.
Yeah, but in that half an hour time would not be percieved in the same way. So that half an hour could seem like a lifetime, or even longer.
But anyway, thats the back up plan. I think that the soul leaves the body.
Google DMT pineal. it's an extremely interesting subject to say the least.