Philosophy Now Forum

''Before it's encounter with the truth, the old belief system was standing proudly on the beach, pretending to be a castle. Now it is only sand, waiting to be washed away by the wave of truth bearing down on it.''

.

history never repeats

-Imp

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:44 pm ''Before it's encounter with the truth, the old belief system was standing proudly on the beach, pretending to be a castle. Now it is only sand, waiting to be washed away by the wave of truth bearing down on it.''



.

Dual systems of observation held since the pre-socratics: Stability, observed by the One Whole through Parmenides, and Flux, observe by the Opposition of Forces through Heraclitus.

The synthesis of these systems may be observed with Socrates/Socratics or stemming from a division within the Pythagoreans.

The points I am trying to make is the concrete and relative truth are symmetrical dimension of the same thing "being", and do not have to "clash" or "dominate" one over the other.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:42 pm
Dual systems of observation held since the pre-socratics: Stability, observed by the One Whole through Parmenides, and Flux, observe by the Opposition of Forces through Heraclitus.

The synthesis of these systems may be observed with Socrates/Socratics or stemming from a division within the Pythagoreans.

Overkill.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:25 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:42 pm
Dual systems of observation held since the pre-socratics: Stability, observed by the One Whole through Parmenides, and Flux, observe by the Opposition of Forces through Heraclitus.

The synthesis of these systems may be observed with Socrates/Socratics or stemming from a division within the Pythagoreans.

Overkill.

Yeah, I am starting to figure out that is one of the problems I have here.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:50 pm history never repeats

-Imp

Oh, look... :/

Everything is changing and Nothing changes.
Report this post Quote
Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:44 pm

''Before it's encounter with the truth, the old belief system was standing proudly on the beach, pretending to be a castle. Now it is only sand, waiting to be washed away by the wave of truth bearing down on it.''

Truth though is not a universal commodity, neither is reality, what is truth for one may not be for another, it caters for perception, as does reality.
I would reword your sentiment as follows: Before its encounter with that which actually is the old belief system, etc,etc. I would revoke your sentiment however, for as times change so too can what appears to be truth, and who is to say that times are not still in flux. There may emerge more than just that one singular castle. If you are the author of this sentiment I`m impressed though.

That was my post, D`s contribution being in inverted. In relation to philosophical progression we deal with the smallest thing, so one tiny component of a concept at a time. Nobody has summed up the meaning of everything in a one liner and to the rest of the worlds satisfaction yet, and such a mission is as pointless as it is hopeless, so on this note it seems I`d better leave you to it. It is your thread, so conduct the debate in that way which best works for you. In response to your what`s changing question, everything is, constantly, and along with all of us. There is nothing profound or difficult to grasp out here..

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:03 pm That was my post, D`s contribution being in inverted. In relation to philosophical progression we deal with the smallest thing, so one tiny component of a concept at a time. Nobody has summed up the meaning of everything in a one liner and to the rest of the worlds satisfaction yet, and such a mission is as pointless as it is hopeless, so on this note it seems I`d better leave you to it. It is your thread, so conduct the debate in that way which best works for you. In response to your what`s changing question, everything is, constantly, and along with all of us. There is nothing profound or difficult to grasp out here..

What if past physicists (Newton, Einstein, etc.) came to the same conclusion as you - "there is nothing profound or difficult to grasp" and just accepted the world for how it was? We use their discoveries every day and accept them as truths in order for the world to run how it does. Just as their discoveries shape the physical world and give it some sort of meaning, why can't there be some sort of universal meaning or beat that connects humans together? After all, their discoveries were made by the human mind and passed into the minds of other humans, which is incredible! Why can't there be some larger meaning that connects us all together, with us eventually all working together to the same beat on a universal mission? I cannot accept your conclusion, as it goes against the human way, in which continuous pushing and striving for the truth always wins out. We are winners who never give up - the only thing preventing that is your own doubts in other humans, which are just doubts in yourself. We can shape the world and the way we think of how we are connected to be anything we want - all that it requires is faith in our fellow humans, which, as stated earlier, we use everyday - faith in physics and the minds of those before us.

This is you speaking, I said what I said, it was unrelated to your set of circumstances, and made reference specifically only to you and to your thread. My assessment here still holds. To do philosophical debate successfully one must apply exceptional instinct in entirely complimentary understanding with each and every communication/attempted communication, not pretend that some entirely fabricated point of view has been exercised in order merely to try and strengthen one`s own standing, one is required to be substantially more mature than the vast majority of ordinary folk. The majority of those that hang out in these places are from my experience less so. There is nothing profound or difficult to grasp where it concerns your assertions. in my opinion, and In eliminating one area one may focus substantially better on another. One is required to apply their own intellect in deciphering of which province to search, and there are countless thousands of provinces. Philosophical provinces are by nature narrow streams, this is of course if they exist at all.