Philosophy Now Forum

Hello, MarkM! I believe that philosophy is the consideration of Everything. Aptly put. And I agree. I find it interesting that you write Everything with a capital "E". It makes me curious about the difference between "Everything" and simply "everything". :) It is not confined to a type of intellectu...

There is a difference between "The Meaning of Life", and you making your life meaningful to youself. I'm aware of that. But even if such an obective, absolute (The) Meaning of Life somehow exists, you have to find it yourself. And once you found it, how can you be sure that you didn't just make it ...

So empathy is built in to a normal person. And we do act first, and justify and rationalize it later. But if we have a good character our actions tend to be moral for the most part. Yes. The question then arises: how do we develop a (morally-)good character? Yes. But I think the more important, and...

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I've never been able to work out what the superstitious mean by 'meaning of life'. Why should it have any 'meaning'?

Because we want it to. Is that not reason enough? Everybody wants to live a meaningful life one way or another.

And what we further find is that when it comes to moral questions, logic is primarily used to justify our moral intuitions. Yes. We are thinking beings. We need to rationalise our instinctive behaviour, to make it reasonable. That's not a bad thing. Logic, rational arguments, basically do not convi...

The point I am trying to make is that science may decide philosophy's issues. There is some confusion (even among philosophers) that philosophy is some sort of science, but it's not. And the issues are not the same. Philosophers can help scientists ask the right questions while science provides the...

I suspect any such explanation would bring new philosophical questions instead, without even answering the old ones to philosophical satisfaction. Actually, MarkM was qouting me there. Seems that he had some probolem with the quote function. Furthermore, the statement is made in defense of philosop...

The top of a mountain emerges from the bottom, and is distinctive, but it is a property of the mountain, not a separate creation like a tree growing on the mountain top. I think this metaphor aptly illustrates your point, but I can't resist pointing out that the distinction between tree and mountai...

A central problem for epistemology for over four hundred years has been the fallibility of the senses, and in turn the fallibility of knowledge. If science succeeds in explaining consciousness, and then is able to reproduce it artificially, in a computer for example, then human uniqueness is lessen...

Are you in a state of denial of the mainstream explanation of the irregularities in the early universe? Real scientists say that it is due to "Quantum fluctuations" in the very early universe prior to the expansion of space (the Inflationary Epoch .) When you ask for why those particular fluctuatio...

How could there ever be a particular fact about anything in a universe that is only defined by general laws of physics? I have to agree with Chaz here. You have it backwards. What's amazing is that the workings of the universe can indeed be described by general laws. Physics is about finding and fo...

Hello - I would like to add another looming threat to philosophy's reputation. Many scientists are anticipating that the problem of consciousness may be successfully tackled in the near future. It is possible that science could explain consciousness soon. This might be a problem for philosophy beca...

To say that no one can know of the absolute, and that it is all relative, might seem to be a level playing field for all... Why do you have to place everything on a playing field? Must it always be a game? ...but in fact it is an absolute statement such that the one that wields it feels as though t...

chaz wyman wrote:Belief is about choice.

Indeed.

chaz wyman wrote:Knowledge is on a higher plain...

Yes. Unattainably high. Unless you're a High Plains Drifter...

chaz wyman wrote:...and involves reason and evidence.

That's your belief, that reason and evidence is enough to produce actual knowledge.

Sir Richard F Burton wrote: 'Men are four. He who knows not, and knows not he knows not; He who knows not, and knows he knows not; He who knows and knows not he knows; He who knows and knows he knows.' I prefer to use only two categories: Those who believe they know. (Because they know not that the...