Philosophy... What do You Think?

I decided to make this thread because philosophy is an interesting subject,with alot of potential for good discussion.Since alot of threads that primarily involve philosophical topics turn into religious threads,I thought a thread dedicated to discussing philosophical topics was a good idea.

I like it, but do not get too focused on it..

I find it interesting, although I've never really talked about it much.

Ooh Philoshophy..... I'll have to think about it

Always up for a philosophical discussion, particularly relating to political/moral realism and existentialism.  
 
And absurdism, of course <3

Its kinda cool.

Was never really a big philosophy fan. Which is weird because I was doing rather well in that philosophy class back in highschool lol But anyway, while I do think that the things it deals with are interesting, sometimes I feel like things just get too overanalysed.

I got my bachelors in applied philosophy(ethics). Unless your heart is really in it I wouldn't suggest majoring in philosophy. I think everyone should have a course in logic and ethics but majoring in the field doesn't really set you up for anything other than going for that masters or doctorate degree. If I had a do over I'd have gone for something a little more practical and maybe minored in philosophy or just kept it as a hobby/interest.

Favorite Philosophers: Kirkegaard and Sartre.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Always up for a philosophical discussion, particularly relating to political/moral realism and existentialism. And absurdism, of course <3

Regarding absurdism I dont think I agree with it fully.I contend that there is no great purpose or meaning to life,but we find our own meaning and purpose in life.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Always up for a philosophical discussion, particularly relating to political/moral realism and existentialism. And absurdism, of course <3

Regarding absurdism I dont think I agree with it fully.I contend that there is no great purpose or meaning to life,but we find our own meaning and purpose in life.

I read the collective writings of Nietzsche when I was thirteen, but that's about it. I'm too simple for some subjects.

I think having a thread devoted to philosophy would be interesting. The issue is that in my opinion everyone has a philosophy of life. And I think most people are unaware that they do. Furthermore most people's philosophy of life is entwined with religion and even politics so you are going to have the inevitable detours into both areas. But mostly I think for this thread to survive you will have to actually state specific questions or point of views. Just having a thread that says "OK . Philosophy--discuss." will eventually die out because of how vague the topic is.

It's my favorite subject.

"Christianity is not a religion; It's a philosophy." - Bill O'Really

I'd say that philosophical discussions can stray away from actual works of philosophy. The subject encompass a great deal that does not have to be restricted in my opinion just to previously stated ideas.

@Glitch_Spawn said:

@sesquipedalophobe said:

I read the collective writings of Nietzsche when I was thirteen, but that's about it. I'm too simple for some subjects.

Wow young age to be reading Nietzsche lol

Yeah, my twenty-something-year-old brother let me borrow it because he thought I needed to expand my vocabulary, that I needed to open my eyes. I thought most of his works were pretentious. I should have read a dictionary instead.

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

"Christianity is not a religion; It's a philosophy." - Bill O'Really

What's the difference between Christianity, Christology, and Christendom?

@The Stegman said:

It's my favorite subject.

@soduh2 said:

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

"Christianity is not a religion; It's a philosophy." - Bill O'Really

What's the difference between Christianity, Christology, and Christendom?

As I said I dont want this to become another thread about religion there already threads for that.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Always up for a philosophical discussion, particularly relating to political/moral realism and existentialism. And absurdism, of course <3

Regarding absurdism I dont think I agree with it fully.I contend that there is no great purpose or meaning to life,but we find our own meaning and purpose in life.

That's Existentialism then :P

Okay...

Philosophical question for the lot of y'all: 
 
Let us suppose that there is a race of organic beings who create an unprecedented, unimaginably powerful AI (artificial intelligence) platform. This platform is able to implement quantum computing, is capable of self-repair and replication, and shows signs of self-determination, although the preliminary reports of this were attributed to basic errors in the platform, and not actual self-determination. 
 
Now, let us suppose that the AI's become entirely self aware, and wage a full-scale war against their creators. Over time, it becomes the most prominent issue in the lives of the organics who created these platforms, and they devote their entire economy and lifestyle to finding a way to defeat their creations once and for all. But, eventually, the platforms create a new form of code; a key to giving them what would be considered self-determination and the beginnings of free thought and expression.  
 
You are the mediator in this quandary. You are given the sole responsibility of stopping the newly formed platforms in their tracks, ending the beginnings of their true "lives" once and for all, possibly damning the organics. If you choose to let them fully develop this code and start on a new path in their "lives", you endanger the lives of all the organics. If you choose to not let them develop this, the synthetic platforms will be unable to "evolve", and will eventually be defeated by their creators.  
 
There are no caveats you can make.

@soduh2 said:

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

"Christianity is not a religion; It's a philosophy." - Bill O'Really

What's the difference between Christianity, Christology, and Christendom?

Christianity - This was supposed to be a philosophy as Christ has established it. No dogmas except for the belief in Christ as a saviour and doing good deeds to your fellows. Early Christians were like that. A more liberal sect of Judaism so to speak. Belief in a one god without the constricting laws. Yes they still did the feasts and the meals and all those but all were only in terms of givnig memory. Not as acts of dogmatic righteousness. Then came Paul/Saul and it became a religion full of doctrines and dogmas and all that. So in a way, O'Reilly is correct. Christianity was meant top be philosophy. But he is certainly pertaining to the Christianity of today (him being an evangelical after all) and so I am inclined to believe it's a sort of scapegoat bs from him to move away from the negative stereotype given to religion.

Christology - Study of Christ. Nature of Jesus. Godhood or personhood of Jesus. Etc. It is concerned more about the person rather than the teachings. It is to be noted that not all Christologists are Christians. I've seen atheists Christologists, Muslim Christologists, etc. You don't really have to submit to the doctrine of the church to study the man, whether it be by historicity or by his rendition on the gospels.

Christendom - The christian world. In a modern context, as stated earlier, Christianity is the religion. Christendom refers to the community. Let's just say Christianity is to constitutioin as Christendom is to State/or Kingdom for easier comparison.

The earliest forms of Christianity was a philosophy. Only later did it become a religion. 

So... Who would win in a fistfight between Immanuel Kant and Freidrich Nietzche?

So... Who would win in a fistfight between Immanuel Kant and Freidrich Nietzche?

@Illuminatus said:

The earliest forms of Christianity was a philosophy. Only later did it become a religion.

Exactly!

Marx's beard devours them both.

Ha! Kant's forehead is way too big to be devoured by Marx's beard.

@Illuminatus said:

I would try to get both sides to realize that working together they would be able to achieve even more, that just because the AI's have evolved doesn't make them human and they'd be able to learn from humans. If that fails, maybe explore if either is capable of space flight. Unless these aren't allowed, in which case I say let the AI's live. Humans had their chance and evidently they weren't up to par. There's just a chance that the AI's kill humans, whereas if you let the humans have their way the AI's are dead for sure.

@Illuminatus said:

Philosophical question for the lot of y'all: Let us suppose that there is a race of organic beings who create an unprecedented, unimaginably powerful AI (artificial intelligence) platform. This platform is able to implement quantum computing, is capable of self-repair and replication, and shows signs of self-determination, although the preliminary reports of this were attributed to basic errors in the platform, and not actual self-determination. Now, let us suppose that the AI's become entirely self aware, and wage a full-scale war against their creators. Over time, it becomes the most prominent issue in the lives of the organics who created these platforms, and they devote their entire economy and lifestyle to finding a way to defeat their creations once and for all. But, eventually, the platforms create a new form of code; a key to giving them what would be considered self-determination and the beginnings of free thought and expression. You are the mediator in this quandary. You are given the sole responsibility of stopping the newly formed platforms in their tracks, ending the beginnings of their true "lives" once and for all, possibly damning the organics. If you choose to let them fully develop this code and start on a new path in their "lives", you endanger the lives of all the organics. If you choose to not let them develop this, the synthetic platforms will be unable to "evolve", and will eventually be defeated by their creators. There are no caveats you can make.

Asimovian philosophy! Nice! I don't have an answer BTW. Too hard of a choice.

@Illuminatus said:

I would try to get both sides to realize that working together they would be able to achieve even more, that just because the AI's have evolved doesn't make them human and they'd be able to learn from humans. If that fails, maybe explore if either is capable of space flight. Unless these aren't allowed, in which case I say let the AI's live. Humans had their chance and evidently they weren't up to par. There's just a chance that the AI's kill humans, whereas if you let the humans have their way the AI's are dead for sure.

I never thought it'd be something i'd be to good at.

@Illuminatus said:

@Xanni15 said:

@Illuminatus said:

I would try to get both sides to realize that working together they would be able to achieve even more, that just because the AI's have evolved doesn't make them human and they'd be able to learn from humans. If that fails, maybe explore if either is capable of space flight. Unless these aren't allowed, in which case I say let the AI's live. Humans had their chance and evidently they weren't up to par. There's just a chance that the AI's kill humans, whereas if you let the humans have their way the AI's are dead for sure.

I never said that the organics in question were human. :p However, you as a human being will be the mediator.

AH!

Well, substitute "organics" for "humans." ;)

@Illuminatus said:

@spetsnaz_gru said:

So... Who would win in a fistfight between Immanuel Kant and Freidrich Nietzche?

Marx's beard devours them both.

This.Speaking of Marx what do you think to his ideas and theories?

@Illuminatus said:

Philosophical question for the lot of y'all: Let us suppose that there is a race of organic beings who create an unprecedented, unimaginably powerful AI (artificial intelligence) platform. This platform is able to implement quantum computing, is capable of self-repair and replication, and shows signs of self-determination, although the preliminary reports of this were attributed to basic errors in the platform, and not actual self-determination. Now, let us suppose that the AI's become entirely self aware, and wage a full-scale war against their creators. Over time, it becomes the most prominent issue in the lives of the organics who created these platforms, and they devote their entire economy and lifestyle to finding a way to defeat their creations once and for all. But, eventually, the platforms create a new form of code; a key to giving them what would be considered self-determination and the beginnings of free thought and expression. You are the mediator in this quandary. You are given the sole responsibility of stopping the newly formed platforms in their tracks, ending the beginnings of their true "lives" once and for all, possibly damning the organics. If you choose to let them fully develop this code and start on a new path in their "lives", you endanger the lives of all the organics. If you choose to not let them develop this, the synthetic platforms will be unable to "evolve", and will eventually be defeated by their creators. There are no caveats you can make.

Interesting scenario.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

This.Speaking of Marx what do you think to his ideas and theories?

I know I wasn't the one asked but I'll answer anyway. Marx, for me, was too ambitious and overlooked the corruption of the masses had they been given the power over the few. I like Marx's socialism and I believe, in an ideal world, it would have worked. Unfortunately, his teachings are on of the ideologies that are very susceptible to the manipulation of the corrupt.

@spetsnaz_gru said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

This.Speaking of Marx what do you think to his ideas and theories?

I know I wasn't the one asked but I'll answer anyway. Marx, for me, was too ambitious and overlooked the corruption of the masses had they been given the power over the few. I like Marx's socialism and I believe, in an ideal world, it would have worked. Unfortunately, his teachings are on of the ideologies that are very susceptible to the manipulation of the corrupt.

I do see what you mean,I mean he only contended that there where two classes and groups of people,whereas society has always been more complex than that.Also if I recall correctly he had a view that history could be predicated and that certain events would eventually lead to the ideal society he had in mind,which again is open to criticism.

When you say his teachings are susceptible to corruption do you mean in regards to Leninism and Stalinism and other forms of so called communism?

What is philosophy?

@Illuminatus said:

Philosophical question for the lot of y'all: Let us suppose that there is a race of organic beings who create an unprecedented, unimaginably powerful AI (artificial intelligence) platform. This platform is able to implement quantum computing, is capable of self-repair and replication, and shows signs of self-determination, although the preliminary reports of this were attributed to basic errors in the platform, and not actual self-determination. Now, let us suppose that the AI's become entirely self aware, and wage a full-scale war against their creators. Over time, it becomes the most prominent issue in the lives of the organics who created these platforms, and they devote their entire economy and lifestyle to finding a way to defeat their creations once and for all. But, eventually, the platforms create a new form of code; a key to giving them what would be considered self-determination and the beginnings of free thought and expression. You are the mediator in this quandary. You are given the sole responsibility of stopping the newly formed platforms in their tracks, ending the beginnings of their true "lives" once and for all, possibly damning the organics. If you choose to let them fully develop this code and start on a new path in their "lives", you endanger the lives of all the organics. If you choose to not let them develop this, the synthetic platforms will be unable to "evolve", and will eventually be defeated by their creators. There are no caveats you can make.

Destroy the machines.

Easy peasy.

@mrdecepticonleader: Religion and Philosophy aren't mutually exclusive. But I'll discuss that elsewhere.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

When you say his teachings are susceptible to corruption do you mean in regards to Leninism and Stalinism and other forms of so called communism?

Exactly. I mean, for example, Marx hated the idea of religion but those guys, especially Mao, diefied themselves. I don't want to throw away religion as I am a faithful, myself. But I would prefer a fully secular society over one that masquerades as secular but with pseudo-godheads to replace them.

Philosophy is great as a whole, but individual bits from individual minds get you different answers all the time.

@soduh2 said:

@mrdecepticonleader: Religion and Philosophy aren't mutually exclusive. But I'll discuss that elsewhere.

Okay that was my point.Since philosophy is a broad enough subject to discuss without having to include religion as well.

@spetsnaz_gru said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

When you say his teachings are susceptible to corruption do you mean in regards to Leninism and Stalinism and other forms of so called communism?

Exactly. I mean, for example, Marx hated the idea of religion but those guys, especially Mao, diefied themselves. I don't want to throw away religion as I am a faithful, myself. But I would prefer a fully secular society over one that masquerades as secular but with pseudo-godheads to replace them.

Yeah that is true.Alot of people tend to think communism is what we see in countries like North Korea and China but it couldn't be any further away from that.

See regarding religion that is where I really agree with Marx as well.

@Tranquil said:

What is philosophy?

Good question

Maybe this might help.

So it encapsules sociology as well as psychology?

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@soduh2 said:

@mrdecepticonleader: Religion and Philosophy aren't mutually exclusive. But I'll discuss that elsewhere.

Okay that was my point.Since philosophy is a broad enough subject to discuss without having to include religion as well.

I've been constantly violating this OP rule, huh? My bad. I'll refrain from discussing religion then.

@Illuminatus said:

Philosophical question for the lot of y'all: Let us suppose that there is a race of organic beings who create an unprecedented, unimaginably powerful AI (artificial intelligence) platform. This platform is able to implement quantum computing, is capable of self-repair and replication, and shows signs of self-determination, although the preliminary reports of this were attributed to basic errors in the platform, and not actual self-determination. Now, let us suppose that the AI's become entirely self aware, and wage a full-scale war against their creators. Over time, it becomes the most prominent issue in the lives of the organics who created these platforms, and they devote their entire economy and lifestyle to finding a way to defeat their creations once and for all. But, eventually, the platforms create a new form of code; a key to giving them what would be considered self-determination and the beginnings of free thought and expression. You are the mediator in this quandary. You are given the sole responsibility of stopping the newly formed platforms in their tracks, ending the beginnings of their true "lives" once and for all, possibly damning the organics. If you choose to let them fully develop this code and start on a new path in their "lives", you endanger the lives of all the organics. If you choose to not let them develop this, the synthetic platforms will be unable to "evolve", and will eventually be defeated by their creators. There are no caveats you can make.

This is from mass effect.

And I chose to let the quarians die. They made their choice so they must face the consequences.

@Tranquil said:

So it encapsules sociology as well as psychology?

Yeah I suppose so.

@ARMIV2 said:

Philosophy is great as a whole, but individual bits from individual minds get you different answers all the time.

Well that is part of the point.It contends with asking the big questions and different philosophers may interpret them differently.So alot of it is on you to decide.

Why?