Winning an argument is a lot harder than you realize. An argument has several sides that are connected to one valid point. Each side, however; is connected to several points which deliver full dimensional reason and logic that is either "pro" or "con". It is entirely up to you to make your point and be done.
But, how easy is it to make your point? The reality is it is not easy. Especially if the people you are arguing with are tough. So, how do you win people over in an argument?
1. Be Confident. Possessing knowledge is one thing because in actuality knowledge is such a powerful yet useful tool. Being confident in the knowledge you have is what winning an argument is all about. If you are not confident, you will never win anything especially arguments.
2. Use Deconstructionism. An extensive vocabulary is impressive, however; it doesn't always work. What does work though? Deconstructionism. Surprisingly when you present your points to the appropriate third parties nothing is more rational than expressing yourself using slang that they have a hard time translating.
3. Be Aggressive. Building a strong, solid foundation is the key to winning just about any argument. As you build your argument and create supporting facts to why you possess the logic and reasoning that you do, you can then apply those facts and present them in a fashion that is sturdy. Eventually your opponent will know that you are not going to back down without a fight.
4. Avoid Ad Hominem. Unfortunately the sticks and stones rule applies heavily when winning people over in argument. Insulting another's logic with an actual tangible or intangible insult is quite banal and is a lot like looking in the mirror and pointing to yourself saying "you you you". It makes you look like a narcissist and narcissists never win arguments.
5. Make Your Point. If you believe in something, make sure that you deliver your argument instantaneously. No one likes explanation unless they ask you for it. If someone is trying to win an argument over you, more than likely they will continue expressing themselves through dialogue without question. There is nothing more annoying than fluff.
A wise individual once said that giving up is as good as losing and losing is as good as death. Although one can object, there is a lot of truth to this quote. Luckily, you don't have to be the loser today.
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Monday, March 23, 2015
Thursday, October 4, 2012
My thoughts about Piers Morgan's interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
I have been receiving several emails from people who read my blogs asking me what my thoughts were about the latest interview Piers Morgan did with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about a week or so ago.
First and foremost, I thought the questions were quite boring, moderately self indulgent, and well, a little banal which left me disappointed. As much as I enjoy Piers Morgan, this interview was definitely not one of my favorites.
I have to admit, I thought that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke relatively prudently despite the fact that I don't agree with several things that he says. He does appear slightly cunning, but who are we to determine such? If anything, he is guilty of being modestly outspoken. I think as a political figure, he seems dramatically ambitious, especially on his emphasis on reform. With that said, I don't understand why people use religion as a weapon to justify an action.
I don't agree with a lot of what Mr. Ahmadinejad says, but I don't see him encouraging the conflict created by distorted international relations. This kind of distortion is created by those that love exaggerating to create afflictions to test allies and prevent political stability. I don't see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a threat. In fact, I think the most threatening individual(s) are those that we don't know. Yes, the "personality" that is evil is one that we will not see until something does happen. There is no connection to what one believes is "obvious" simply because that person's decorum is embellished and tested by media and the status quo masses that follow.
I am proud to be an American, but I truly believe the reality is this; the killing of millions of individuals for the sake of thousands contradicts and undermines human's natural rights to a sizable degree of social harm. It is wrong and should never be supported as ok. I think the only solution to this issue is for allies of the countries to simply stop meddling into political affairs they are not a part of.
First and foremost, I thought the questions were quite boring, moderately self indulgent, and well, a little banal which left me disappointed. As much as I enjoy Piers Morgan, this interview was definitely not one of my favorites.
I have to admit, I thought that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke relatively prudently despite the fact that I don't agree with several things that he says. He does appear slightly cunning, but who are we to determine such? If anything, he is guilty of being modestly outspoken. I think as a political figure, he seems dramatically ambitious, especially on his emphasis on reform. With that said, I don't understand why people use religion as a weapon to justify an action.
I don't agree with a lot of what Mr. Ahmadinejad says, but I don't see him encouraging the conflict created by distorted international relations. This kind of distortion is created by those that love exaggerating to create afflictions to test allies and prevent political stability. I don't see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a threat. In fact, I think the most threatening individual(s) are those that we don't know. Yes, the "personality" that is evil is one that we will not see until something does happen. There is no connection to what one believes is "obvious" simply because that person's decorum is embellished and tested by media and the status quo masses that follow.
I am proud to be an American, but I truly believe the reality is this; the killing of millions of individuals for the sake of thousands contradicts and undermines human's natural rights to a sizable degree of social harm. It is wrong and should never be supported as ok. I think the only solution to this issue is for allies of the countries to simply stop meddling into political affairs they are not a part of.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
There is currently more BAD on the internet then GOOD
According to a recent study conducted on Tuesday, March 6th 2012 by myself, there is more bad on the internet than good...
GOOD
About 8,430,000,000 results (0.25 seconds) - Google
140,000,000 results - Yahoo
1-10 of 138,000,000 results - Bing
BAD
About 3,150,000,000 results (0.22 seconds) - Google
1,370,000,000 results - Yahoo
1-10 of 1,540,000,000 results - Bing
Much different than the study conducted on March 25th 2007 by myself which gave me incredibly different results...
GOOD
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,390,000,000 for good (google)
1 - 10 of about 1,730,000,000 for good (yahoo)
Page 1 of 339,581,239 results (msn)
BAD
Results 1 - 10 of about 655,000,000 for bad (google)
1 - 10 of about 649,000,000 for bad (yahoo)
Page 1 of 155,027,157 results (msn)
GOOD
About 8,430,000,000 results
1 - 10 of about 1,730,000,000 for good (yahoo)
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Questions and Answers about The Illiad...
1) The marriage of Peleus and Thetis--how is it involved in the run-up to the war? Who is their son? - Thetis left Peleus after Peleus interrupted the process of making Achilles immortal. An Oracle predicted that Achilles would fight in the Trojan war and later on, Achilles went on to fight in the war. Peleus and Thetis’s son is Achilles.
2) The Judgment of Paris: Again, who is/are involved? Why does it happen? What does it have to do with the war and its progress? - Zeus held a formal meal that was basically an ancient America’s Next Top Model amongst goddesses. Although Zeus was expected to judge the three goddesses (since he held the affair) on who is fairest and brightest, as well as, most beautiful, he invited Paris, a Phrygian mortal, to attend and judge these women. Of course Paris consented his invitation. As time ensued and the goddesses attempted to manipulate and dictate Paris into choosing them, his eyes were drawn to “Helen of Sparta” who was the wife of Greek King Menelaus, who was the king of Sparta at that time. Helen was beautiful, but Helen was also a pushover. Helen was sublimely unhappy with Menelaus because he was radically insecure and a bit timid in a fearful sense, which led to physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Helen was scared of Menelaus because he had also made threats on her life and although she loved him, she didn’t want to cross him in fear he would reciprocate. Helen was charming and that was certain, however; because Paris was vulnerable and has fell for women before, he had a different feeling about Helen. After a secretive affair between Helen of Sparta and Paris, he decided to sneak her out of Menelaus’s palace and onto a boat with the Trojans back to Troy. Once Menelaus discovered Helen was gone, he questioned several individuals who were surrounding the territory, later to find out that Helen left with Paris to Troy. Menelaus became enraged with anger and proposed an agenda that would seek revenge. Although Hector was a warrior who fought as the leader for the Trojan’s, he was smart enough to realize what Paris has done. Keep in mind that Paris cannot fight to save his life, let alone handle the situation he created. Hector loved his brother and that was certain, so it was quite finalized that “Helen of Sparta” was now “Helen of Troy” and there really wasn’t anything he could do. After many years of attempting to make peace with Menelaus and his people, Hector knew that a possible war would fuel. Despite Menelaus’s insanity, Sparta had many allies. Menelaus contacted his brother Agamemnon who was even more nuts than his brother Menelaus because he wanted to help his brother more on the glory of destroying Troy rather than doing the ethical thing. He actually persuaded that a war is the only way for him to get Helen back in which Menelaus accepted. He, then, gathered other kingdoms to help the Spartans in the war which included the Argos and the Mycenaes. He also manipulated Achilles into fighting for his side in an effort to win the war, but he and Achilles did not get along. In fact, Achilles knew his agenda and that was the only thing that stopped him from fighting this war. Anyways, as time proceeded, so did the war. There were thousands upon thousands of boats from all over the world that supported the Spartans, without knowledge of the reality of why the war actually existed. It was then that “Helen of Sparta” who later became “Helen of Troy” was known as “The face that launched a thousand ships”.
3) The abduction/seduction of Helen "of Troy"--the basic story of its connection to Paris's "judgment," who is/are involved, what it has to do with preparation for the war. - When Paris first met Helen, she was “Helen of Sparta”. Helen was married to Menelaus, who was King of Sparta. Menelaus’s family had a history of crime and severe mental illness, which lead to Menelaus acting overly controlling with Helen. Not just this, but he was abusive towards her that sometimes he would lock her up. She was on watch 24/7 by misc. guards because he was paranoid. Paris was invited by Zeus to judge three goddesses and although Paris found these women beautiful, in the eye of his beholder, none of them even compared to Helen. Helen was gorgeous, but she was humble and had an aura that was more sex appeal than beauty, although she was stunning. Kind of like an ancient Angelina Jolie or Monica Bellucci. Anyways, Paris was notorious for being vulnerable and Hector recognized this immediately. When Paris said that he loved Helen, Hector immediately attempted to correct him by saying he was brainwashed and knew absolutely nothing about love. Hector knew immediately that although peace was finally made with the Spartans, that the entire situation would create outmoded anguish among all parties in which a war would definitely have be to fought. It was then that this would later to become certain and a war would actual exist.
4) The sacrifice of Iphigenia/Iphigenia--who is/are involved? How is it related to the war? - In order to appease Artemis, Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter Theorists believe that Artemis punished Agamemnon for killing a deer in which Agamemnon would later sacrifice his daughter for this crime. Artemis propelled a divergent wind, which held the Greek flotilla in the bay of Aulis. This was where it had amassed before sailing to Troy. The spiritualist Calchas divined that the daughter of Agamemnon would have to be sacrificed to importune and concur for the encroachment. Agamemnon then mustered Iphigenia from home under the ploy that she was to be married to Achilles, who would later fight in the Trojan war.
2) The Judgment of Paris: Again, who is/are involved? Why does it happen? What does it have to do with the war and its progress? - Zeus held a formal meal that was basically an ancient America’s Next Top Model amongst goddesses. Although Zeus was expected to judge the three goddesses (since he held the affair) on who is fairest and brightest, as well as, most beautiful, he invited Paris, a Phrygian mortal, to attend and judge these women. Of course Paris consented his invitation. As time ensued and the goddesses attempted to manipulate and dictate Paris into choosing them, his eyes were drawn to “Helen of Sparta” who was the wife of Greek King Menelaus, who was the king of Sparta at that time. Helen was beautiful, but Helen was also a pushover. Helen was sublimely unhappy with Menelaus because he was radically insecure and a bit timid in a fearful sense, which led to physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Helen was scared of Menelaus because he had also made threats on her life and although she loved him, she didn’t want to cross him in fear he would reciprocate. Helen was charming and that was certain, however; because Paris was vulnerable and has fell for women before, he had a different feeling about Helen. After a secretive affair between Helen of Sparta and Paris, he decided to sneak her out of Menelaus’s palace and onto a boat with the Trojans back to Troy. Once Menelaus discovered Helen was gone, he questioned several individuals who were surrounding the territory, later to find out that Helen left with Paris to Troy. Menelaus became enraged with anger and proposed an agenda that would seek revenge. Although Hector was a warrior who fought as the leader for the Trojan’s, he was smart enough to realize what Paris has done. Keep in mind that Paris cannot fight to save his life, let alone handle the situation he created. Hector loved his brother and that was certain, so it was quite finalized that “Helen of Sparta” was now “Helen of Troy” and there really wasn’t anything he could do. After many years of attempting to make peace with Menelaus and his people, Hector knew that a possible war would fuel. Despite Menelaus’s insanity, Sparta had many allies. Menelaus contacted his brother Agamemnon who was even more nuts than his brother Menelaus because he wanted to help his brother more on the glory of destroying Troy rather than doing the ethical thing. He actually persuaded that a war is the only way for him to get Helen back in which Menelaus accepted. He, then, gathered other kingdoms to help the Spartans in the war which included the Argos and the Mycenaes. He also manipulated Achilles into fighting for his side in an effort to win the war, but he and Achilles did not get along. In fact, Achilles knew his agenda and that was the only thing that stopped him from fighting this war. Anyways, as time proceeded, so did the war. There were thousands upon thousands of boats from all over the world that supported the Spartans, without knowledge of the reality of why the war actually existed. It was then that “Helen of Sparta” who later became “Helen of Troy” was known as “The face that launched a thousand ships”.
3) The abduction/seduction of Helen "of Troy"--the basic story of its connection to Paris's "judgment," who is/are involved, what it has to do with preparation for the war. - When Paris first met Helen, she was “Helen of Sparta”. Helen was married to Menelaus, who was King of Sparta. Menelaus’s family had a history of crime and severe mental illness, which lead to Menelaus acting overly controlling with Helen. Not just this, but he was abusive towards her that sometimes he would lock her up. She was on watch 24/7 by misc. guards because he was paranoid. Paris was invited by Zeus to judge three goddesses and although Paris found these women beautiful, in the eye of his beholder, none of them even compared to Helen. Helen was gorgeous, but she was humble and had an aura that was more sex appeal than beauty, although she was stunning. Kind of like an ancient Angelina Jolie or Monica Bellucci. Anyways, Paris was notorious for being vulnerable and Hector recognized this immediately. When Paris said that he loved Helen, Hector immediately attempted to correct him by saying he was brainwashed and knew absolutely nothing about love. Hector knew immediately that although peace was finally made with the Spartans, that the entire situation would create outmoded anguish among all parties in which a war would definitely have be to fought. It was then that this would later to become certain and a war would actual exist.
4) The sacrifice of Iphigenia/Iphigenia--who is/are involved? How is it related to the war? - In order to appease Artemis, Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter Theorists believe that Artemis punished Agamemnon for killing a deer in which Agamemnon would later sacrifice his daughter for this crime. Artemis propelled a divergent wind, which held the Greek flotilla in the bay of Aulis. This was where it had amassed before sailing to Troy. The spiritualist Calchas divined that the daughter of Agamemnon would have to be sacrificed to importune and concur for the encroachment. Agamemnon then mustered Iphigenia from home under the ploy that she was to be married to Achilles, who would later fight in the Trojan war.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Lasting principles of friendship in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
In Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics", Aristotle speaks about life on a variety of wavelengths. I've had the pleasure of reading this and I was quite satisfied with what I read. Although Aristotle speaks volumes of what is right and wrong, as well as, ordinarily accepted, it's approach to friendship is riveting. One of his primary focuses is friendship and although it is implied throughout all ten books, friendship is extremely and radically focused in books eight and nine.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle elaborates that friendship is more than just a bond between two people, but something that should be valued. Aristotle discusses strengths and weaknesses of friendship and focuses on their value, as a result and also discusses everything from the beginning to the end, of a friendship.
Aristotle states in the beginning of book eight that there are only three kinds of friendships, but he does not describe them specifically. He states that in order to maintain any friendship, you must not change. There are instances, I agree, but life is not perfect and therefore; cannot agree. What if you meet someone who is physically unable to communicate from a trauma or what if you meet someone who has a sexual addiction and is in need of help? These are some thoughts to ponder.
He then continues to speak about individualism in his own words and if people do not remain themselves or true to themselves, the friendship will eventually die. I think that is truly important, so I can understand his reason for stating such. Although, he uses examples of actions he does or doesn't like, some I do not agree with include his stereotypical words about Persians. As he gets towards the end of book eight, he starts talking about the origin of differences in friendships.
What was extremely impressive was in beginning of book nine when, Aristotle quoted in the beginning that "In all friendships between dissimilars it is, as we have said, proportion that equalizes the parties and preserves the friendship". I believe that Aristotle was simply saying that "we have the ability to like and love individuals who are different, despite our differences".
He then continues to talk about reasons for maintaining a friendship based on action and not way of thinking, as everyone is different, therefore; has a different opinion on such issue. He continues to talk more about worth and goodwill and their relations to each other. Just because one does good things, doesn't mean they are good, although may seem good in a beginning of a friendship. I think he was basically stating that "things are not what they seem" which is very true. If you meet someone you think is a nice person, they may or may not be a nice person.
As Aristotle continues, he talks about friends and specific reasons why individuals are friends and he starts to talk about presence and it's importance in a lasting friendship including how it makes an impact on one's reputation, as a result. Towards the end of book nine, Aristotle analyzes consciousness and focuses on how it develops through friendship. He also talks about improving oneself to save a friendship, but doesn't specifically state how to do so.
I like Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and truly recommend this to anyone who wants to be inspired or who appreciates life, as well as, value, love, and friendship.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle elaborates that friendship is more than just a bond between two people, but something that should be valued. Aristotle discusses strengths and weaknesses of friendship and focuses on their value, as a result and also discusses everything from the beginning to the end, of a friendship.
Aristotle states in the beginning of book eight that there are only three kinds of friendships, but he does not describe them specifically. He states that in order to maintain any friendship, you must not change. There are instances, I agree, but life is not perfect and therefore; cannot agree. What if you meet someone who is physically unable to communicate from a trauma or what if you meet someone who has a sexual addiction and is in need of help? These are some thoughts to ponder.
He then continues to speak about individualism in his own words and if people do not remain themselves or true to themselves, the friendship will eventually die. I think that is truly important, so I can understand his reason for stating such. Although, he uses examples of actions he does or doesn't like, some I do not agree with include his stereotypical words about Persians. As he gets towards the end of book eight, he starts talking about the origin of differences in friendships.
What was extremely impressive was in beginning of book nine when, Aristotle quoted in the beginning that "In all friendships between dissimilars it is, as we have said, proportion that equalizes the parties and preserves the friendship". I believe that Aristotle was simply saying that "we have the ability to like and love individuals who are different, despite our differences".
He then continues to talk about reasons for maintaining a friendship based on action and not way of thinking, as everyone is different, therefore; has a different opinion on such issue. He continues to talk more about worth and goodwill and their relations to each other. Just because one does good things, doesn't mean they are good, although may seem good in a beginning of a friendship. I think he was basically stating that "things are not what they seem" which is very true. If you meet someone you think is a nice person, they may or may not be a nice person.
As Aristotle continues, he talks about friends and specific reasons why individuals are friends and he starts to talk about presence and it's importance in a lasting friendship including how it makes an impact on one's reputation, as a result. Towards the end of book nine, Aristotle analyzes consciousness and focuses on how it develops through friendship. He also talks about improving oneself to save a friendship, but doesn't specifically state how to do so.
I like Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and truly recommend this to anyone who wants to be inspired or who appreciates life, as well as, value, love, and friendship.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
A simple difference between a soul and a spirit
When it comes to the soul and the spirit, they appear to be similar, but in reality they are different and opinions may vary wildly.
A soul is something that is eternal, yet pre-existing. A soul can be mortal or immortal. It is the essence of our being. A soul educates itself and develops naturally. When something has soul, they have feeling. To have a soul, is to have life.
A spirit is a deeply situated aspect of the soul. A spirit may or may not eternal. A spirit develops and grows as an integral aspect of the living being. When something has spirit, they have color. A spirit is the energy within us.
A soul is something that is eternal, yet pre-existing. A soul can be mortal or immortal. It is the essence of our being. A soul educates itself and develops naturally. When something has soul, they have feeling. To have a soul, is to have life.
A spirit is a deeply situated aspect of the soul. A spirit may or may not eternal. A spirit develops and grows as an integral aspect of the living being. When something has spirit, they have color. A spirit is the energy within us.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
What is Equalism?
Everyone is individually different and possesses a lot of uniqueness that separates them from being the same person. Since individuals are in fact different, does that mean they are not equal? Equalism is simply a promotion of equality that embraces the conception, all people should be treated as equal, despite their differences. This can be anything from the color of their skin to the religion they follow and much more.
The term "equalism" was created by philosophical originators and later applied to promote activism, including feminism. Equalism is most commonly known as a philosophy, based on the premise of substance. However, there are many who believe it's more of a tool or guide to promote change for a less polarized society. Individuals who are more "pro" towards equalism believe that if an individual is black or an individual is white, despite the color of their skin, they are equal because they both bleed red.
Although it's been stated that equalism only applies to gender, race, and society, it also applies to much more by association alone. In fact, when it comes to equalism associated with a person, a place, or a thing; equalism elaborates standard differences, but specifically promotes their equals and provides reasons for believing why.
Equalism plays a role in life and in spite of its negatives, the positives or strengths tend to exceed the weakness, as a result. Some theorists believe that equalism is a way of being "blind" to not just people, but the individual's actions. However; if someone's right is right for them, does it mean that it is right for you? Equalism allows us to ponder those thoughts, but accept that it is ok to be different, possess different beliefs and/or opinions and approach things differently. In the age of status quo, those are some thoughts to ponder.
The term "equalism" was created by philosophical originators and later applied to promote activism, including feminism. Equalism is most commonly known as a philosophy, based on the premise of substance. However, there are many who believe it's more of a tool or guide to promote change for a less polarized society. Individuals who are more "pro" towards equalism believe that if an individual is black or an individual is white, despite the color of their skin, they are equal because they both bleed red.
Although it's been stated that equalism only applies to gender, race, and society, it also applies to much more by association alone. In fact, when it comes to equalism associated with a person, a place, or a thing; equalism elaborates standard differences, but specifically promotes their equals and provides reasons for believing why.
Equalism plays a role in life and in spite of its negatives, the positives or strengths tend to exceed the weakness, as a result. Some theorists believe that equalism is a way of being "blind" to not just people, but the individual's actions. However; if someone's right is right for them, does it mean that it is right for you? Equalism allows us to ponder those thoughts, but accept that it is ok to be different, possess different beliefs and/or opinions and approach things differently. In the age of status quo, those are some thoughts to ponder.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
The Importance of Philosophy (a simple theory)
When it comes to Philosophy, the reasons why philosophy is so important, vary. One of the reasons is Interest. Philosophy is the Love of Wisdom. To pursue philosophy on an intellectual level, allows you to discuss it's importance. As your true conception grows, it allows you to find your moral discipline and opens the doors to investigation. Whether that include nature, causes/effects, or principles of reality. Philosophy challenges what we already know and what we have yet to find out. Knowledge is power, but a power that trumps a systematically challenged value, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. We can only inquire so much, without wanting to learn more about what we have inquired. There is much more to an analysis of fundamental assumptions and standard beliefs. Philosophy disciplines us and makes us "wake up". It allows us to realize we can't control everything in our life. You can create theories upon theories based on ideas, beliefs, and activities; and most likely, you will not have the correct answer.
Philosophy could also relate to someone's personal ordinary way of thinking. Not just their basic beliefs, opinions, and attitudes; but the standards they set for themselves and others around them. Philosophy contributes to one's growth and is crucial, yet effective to oneself. Some may "brush off" philosophy, but that is their philosophy. The intelligent seek knowledge, the wise seek knowledge for. Philosophy is for individuals who are both intelligent and wise. Those who seek a specific kind of knowledge and/or knowledge for another end, instead of truth are merely intelligent and not wise. Individuals who seek all knowledge in relation to the truth are both wise and intelligent and therefore deserve to be commended with the label of the "Philosopher". Everyone is different, therefore; everyone has a completely different perception.
Is a right something that is given to you by freewill or is a right something that cannot be taken away?
Is everyone's conception influenced by history, culture, and attitude towards life?
Is philosophy only required to find a way from unhappiness to happiness?
Personally, I take philosophy very seriously. I do not like to treat the matters in trivial form as it entails the beliefs of others and not just our own self. You can speak for yourself, as you should; but allow others to understand your remote way of thinking. Philosophy is an analysis of the concepts that we take for granted, an analysis of the concepts that we use to understand our relation to the world and our relations with each other. "Love of wisdom" really is passe, at least since Descartes. Philosophy no longer aims at "absolute truth" and creating systems, but at accurately describing what is before us. The post-modern collapse from monism to multiplicity (Nietzsche, Deleuze, Derrida, i.e.) entails that philosophy can only interpret and that it has a fragmented access to the world. Heraclitean difference, it seems, has won over Parmenidean monism.
Contemporary philosophy is essentially Heraclitean. We use Philosophy to question our naive beliefs, to free ourselves from narrow ways of thinking. It teaches us to analyze critically, rather than to calculate and tabulate. While some branches of philosophy are in danger of collapsing into psychology, there is much more to philosophy than trying to figure out what happens in the brain. There is moral philosophy, political philosophy, social philosophy, and many "philosophy of's" such as the philosophies of religion, art, technology, music, ETC. Granted, each of these different branches of philosophy may and do deal with psychology in their own respects, but once again they are not exhausted by it. Unless these skills are useless, philosophy will always have a place in the world, regardless of whether it spends its time coming up with new ideas or just studying the words of dead Europeans. Science may be the way of the future, but Philosophy is the guide of the future.
Whether you are a graduate of MIT with a doctorate degree in five different forms of Philosophy or a homeless person using the computer terminal at the local library and regardless, of your stance or view on a particular issue, the world needs you.
Philosophy could also relate to someone's personal ordinary way of thinking. Not just their basic beliefs, opinions, and attitudes; but the standards they set for themselves and others around them. Philosophy contributes to one's growth and is crucial, yet effective to oneself. Some may "brush off" philosophy, but that is their philosophy. The intelligent seek knowledge, the wise seek knowledge for. Philosophy is for individuals who are both intelligent and wise. Those who seek a specific kind of knowledge and/or knowledge for another end, instead of truth are merely intelligent and not wise. Individuals who seek all knowledge in relation to the truth are both wise and intelligent and therefore deserve to be commended with the label of the "Philosopher". Everyone is different, therefore; everyone has a completely different perception.
Is a right something that is given to you by freewill or is a right something that cannot be taken away?
Is everyone's conception influenced by history, culture, and attitude towards life?
Is philosophy only required to find a way from unhappiness to happiness?
Personally, I take philosophy very seriously. I do not like to treat the matters in trivial form as it entails the beliefs of others and not just our own self. You can speak for yourself, as you should; but allow others to understand your remote way of thinking. Philosophy is an analysis of the concepts that we take for granted, an analysis of the concepts that we use to understand our relation to the world and our relations with each other. "Love of wisdom" really is passe, at least since Descartes. Philosophy no longer aims at "absolute truth" and creating systems, but at accurately describing what is before us. The post-modern collapse from monism to multiplicity (Nietzsche, Deleuze, Derrida, i.e.) entails that philosophy can only interpret and that it has a fragmented access to the world. Heraclitean difference, it seems, has won over Parmenidean monism.
Contemporary philosophy is essentially Heraclitean. We use Philosophy to question our naive beliefs, to free ourselves from narrow ways of thinking. It teaches us to analyze critically, rather than to calculate and tabulate. While some branches of philosophy are in danger of collapsing into psychology, there is much more to philosophy than trying to figure out what happens in the brain. There is moral philosophy, political philosophy, social philosophy, and many "philosophy of's" such as the philosophies of religion, art, technology, music, ETC. Granted, each of these different branches of philosophy may and do deal with psychology in their own respects, but once again they are not exhausted by it. Unless these skills are useless, philosophy will always have a place in the world, regardless of whether it spends its time coming up with new ideas or just studying the words of dead Europeans. Science may be the way of the future, but Philosophy is the guide of the future.
Whether you are a graduate of MIT with a doctorate degree in five different forms of Philosophy or a homeless person using the computer terminal at the local library and regardless, of your stance or view on a particular issue, the world needs you.
My thoughts on "Solipsism"
Solipsism
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that exists". Solipsism is an epistemological and metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis, which many philosophers have struggled to defend against.
There are three types of Solipsism. They are:
Metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which maintains that the individual self of the solipsistic philosopher is the whole of reality and that the external world and other persons are representations of that self having no perceptual independent existence.
Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known. The existence of an external world is regarded as an unresolvable question, or an unnecessary hypothesis rather than actually false.
Methodological solipsism is the epistemological thesis that the individual self and its states are the sole possible or proper starting point for philosophical construction. The methodological solipsist does not intend to conclude that one of the stronger forms of solipsism is true, but rather believes that all other truths must be founded on indisputable facts about his own consciousness. A skeptical turn along these lines is cartesian skepticism.
My opinion:
Solipism embraces the concept that the "mind" is the only thing that exists, but anything outside of the mind is unjustified. I object. I believe that is simply an opinion, based on one's awareness. I believe that solipism is simply a perception. I believe that in order to have a perception, you must think about it, while conscious. For example: In one's mind, they believe that it is ok, it is their perception that makes it ok, to do something that is completely unethical because in their mind it is ok. This is like saying that entire world must possess the same perception, without thinking about it because it only exists in the mind. I believe that in order for the mind to exist, that "matter" must also play a role. I do, however; believe, that the mind trumphs over matter.
I do believe Solipism exists, but only in few individuals. These include:
- Individuals who are not developed (newborn babies and infants)
- Individuals with special needs (depending on type of need and factor, as well as, percentage of the brain that is affected, etc)
- Individuals who are near death (seniors in nursing homes, hospice, etc)
- Individuals who suffer from extreme mental illness (this varies, depending on the illness and percentage)
- Individuals who are huge drug addicts
- Zombies.
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that exists". Solipsism is an epistemological and metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis, which many philosophers have struggled to defend against.
There are three types of Solipsism. They are:
Metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which maintains that the individual self of the solipsistic philosopher is the whole of reality and that the external world and other persons are representations of that self having no perceptual independent existence.
Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known. The existence of an external world is regarded as an unresolvable question, or an unnecessary hypothesis rather than actually false.
Methodological solipsism is the epistemological thesis that the individual self and its states are the sole possible or proper starting point for philosophical construction. The methodological solipsist does not intend to conclude that one of the stronger forms of solipsism is true, but rather believes that all other truths must be founded on indisputable facts about his own consciousness. A skeptical turn along these lines is cartesian skepticism.
My opinion:
Solipism embraces the concept that the "mind" is the only thing that exists, but anything outside of the mind is unjustified. I object. I believe that is simply an opinion, based on one's awareness. I believe that solipism is simply a perception. I believe that in order to have a perception, you must think about it, while conscious. For example: In one's mind, they believe that it is ok, it is their perception that makes it ok, to do something that is completely unethical because in their mind it is ok. This is like saying that entire world must possess the same perception, without thinking about it because it only exists in the mind. I believe that in order for the mind to exist, that "matter" must also play a role. I do, however; believe, that the mind trumphs over matter.
I do believe Solipism exists, but only in few individuals. These include:
- Individuals who are not developed (newborn babies and infants)
- Individuals with special needs (depending on type of need and factor, as well as, percentage of the brain that is affected, etc)
- Individuals who are near death (seniors in nursing homes, hospice, etc)
- Individuals who suffer from extreme mental illness (this varies, depending on the illness and percentage)
- Individuals who are huge drug addicts
- Zombies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)