Whats so special about Plato and Aristotle anyway? Don't we have our own minds? Haven't we learned a whole lot more to think about now? lol
Whats so special about Plato and Aristotle anyway? Don't we have our own minds? Haven't we learned a whole lot more to think about now? lol
Socrates is the only one worth learning about. He was an enlightened man, the rest were just philosophers.
May as well say that digestion is a free creation of the stomach, and has nothing to do with food. I don't see how anyone can read that and not laugh their ass off. Only an idiot would look at a statement that amounts to knowledge is ignorance and be impressed. When someone cannot tell the difference between science and mysticism, then why do they bother? Ever hear the expression "baffle them with bullshit?" A moron such as I could refute Einstien because of the simple principles of language. See my Language and Experience.
How life began? Plenty of theories/hypotheses, but...
I would imagine that it is possible that, that question is just like asking how did space begin--a violation of logic itself. If both are wrong, the myths that so called scientist create, and the myths of the religious, who in their right mind would claim that the one is superior to the other? Who in their right mind would say that one dead man was better off than another dead man because one body was older than the other?
However, it is not the same as How our life began. There is a difference between Space and a space, between Life and a life, between Love and a love--even difference between God and a god. Although every member of a class has the same definition as every other member of the same class, the member of a class is not the definition of which it is a member. A concept that Bertrand Russell was not even capable of formulating, while others don't even try. i.e. class mechanics, neither a boundary of a thing is a thing, nor is the material difference of a thing a thing, Plato wrote Parmenides so that the reader may some day realize the principles of what can and cannot be predicated of what. If one knew the elements of grammar, they can easily construct a simple table of permissible predications determined solely on the notion that A = A.
And it can "MOO" too, how impressive.
Let me ask you a question, was the crying of babies that stopped the development of human understanding, or did it in fact promote it?
Has anyone mentioned spitty-slurpy yet?
Ugh. I just made a long reply that got deleted... Oh, well, I'll summarize.
Okay. I'm not saying that our theories or understandings of the world right now are 100%, without a doubt, correct. What I am saying is that, if the human mind had no limitations, science could fully reveal the workings of the world. The reason why this is possible is because the world, the universe, everything, works in a certain way, by certain laws, as a reaction to other things, etc. There may be, at the center of it all, possibly one initial thing which is beyond science and definitely beyond human understanding, but nothing else. Yes, science is a tool used by humans to decipher the inner workings of the universe, but that does not mean that it is impossible to know if it is correct or not. Would you say that you do not believe in gravity? What about the earth being round? Are those things you disagree with? Both were discovered by science. It may be impossible to ever know the real scale of the mechanism merely by observation, but the world isn't really like a closed watch. We have far more than just visual evidence to back up our ideas. However, you can be sure that there is in fact a mechanism inside the watch, even if you cannot be sure exactly how it works.
I use to say it with less words, the existence of bird droppings implies the existence of birds. Or from the foundation, effect implies cause, an application of A = A.
However, langauge does not contradict langauge, and if anyone, no matter what they wanted to believe, had an interest in understanding would first made sure they understood it before they put faith in what they did with it.
LOL!
I hate it when people try to baffle me with bullshit... all the time... and then accuse other people of doing the same.
What's that you say? Xaqaria is an idiot? I don't think I agree, and I think you just want to call him names.
I know. I hate it when people try to baffle me with bullshit... all the time... and then accuse other people of doing the same.
I know. I hate it when people try to baffle me with bullshit... all the time... and then accuse other people of doing the same...
...repeatedly.
LOL! I didn't actually expect you to make sense this time either.
I hate when people try to baffle me with bullshit.
Bleh. In jest. It was funny until you edited it.
"The term metaphysics originally referred to the writings of Aristotle that came after his writings on physics. Traditionally, metaphysics refers to the branch of philosophy that attempts to understand the fundamental nature of all reality, whether visible or invisible. It seeks a description so basic, so essentially simple, so all-inclusive that it applies to everything, whether divine or human or anything else. It attempts to tell what anything must be like in order to be at all."
"Plato's ethics is inseparable from his epistemology. Epistemology is, broadly speaking, the study of what knowledge is and how one comes to have knowledge. Among the many topics included in epistemology are logic, belief, perception, language, science, and knowledge."
That's, in fact what's so special about them.