| User | Starless Knight | | Topic | Sophies World | | Message | The novel about philosophy - I am sure you have heard of it, lol :) If you have read it, I would like to know what you think. It is rather odd, the ending, and I did not really expect it at all . . . but on the subject of the message - the philosophy behind it all . . . what do you think? |
|| Replies ||
| User | Starless Knight | 2006-04-16 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Right, and right again! There is an answer to every question - the only thing truely questionable is the atainability of such answers . . . and perhaps, as well, how well we would recieve them. I’d be rather screwed if the Christian god really did exist, but I still can’t bring myself to believe. Likewise, I bet they would be furious to find that Oden rules all. Beyond that, what is our infactuation with religion. Even me, I loathe to admitt. Science is my weakness, but science, philosophy, religion - they are all just different hopeful paths to the destination every human seeks in some way shape for or fashion - the nature of our existence. |
| User | Fantastic Freya | 2006-04-14 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | We can prove things according to fundamental assumptions, yes. If we couldn’t do that, we’d essentially be wasting our time. And in order to avoid complete insanity, we have to take the assumption that we DO in fact exist, and that some things we consider tangible are so, rather than thinking that there’s a possibility we could all just be bits and bytes in some cosmic computer game or something. So we have to make those fundamental assumptions -- THIS is so, therefore it follows that this, this and this are true. All the while bearing in mind that if that initial assumption is ever found to be wrong (like the whole sun revolving around the earth thing), we are designed as human beings to be flexible enough to abandon an entire paradigm. (Of course, there are people who fall well outside that "flexible" model but they’re best not discussed.)
If you take Descartes’ "I think, therefore I am" to be correct -- and I can’t think of any good reason not to, even if I have a problem with his relating it to the existence of God -- then even if we are not "real" in the sense that we have come to understand, the thoughts that we produce are real, and have consequences which can in most cases be predicted and analysed. Like, if you kill someone they’re dead, they don’t come back -- what happens to them after their dead can be speculated on endlessly, but cause and effect is quite clear. Of course, we could be just assuming that to be correct because nobody ever HAS come back (mythology aside). So it’s difficult to prove something in the absolute positive -- probably the best we can do is say, "this is correct as far as millennia of data has shown us". |
| User | Starless Knight | 2006-04-14 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | *shaves as well*
Well, there has to be some solid ground. Like, for one, the fact that we exist. In some shape form or fashion, it is an un deniable truth that we do indeed exist . . . it’s the shape, form or fashion that people are having a disagreement over.
Still, that means that some things can be proven - which gives hope for other things. |
| User | Fantastic Freya | 2006-04-08 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | There is no such thing as a strong feminist.
Oh hell, I’m a traitor to my gender. Off I go to shave my legs. |
| User | machine dream | 2006-04-07 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Only if you handle all of them at the same time. Careful though.. I’m expecting a strong feminist protest soon.. unless you get off on that. |
| User | machine dream | 2006-04-07 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | I guess I expect too much out of life. Then again, a forum with 40 LIBs might be too much to handle, even for God. |
| User | Fantastic Freya | 2006-04-07 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Fair go, LIB -- it’s not supposed to have massive character depth, it’s the concept that’s important. |
| User | Fantastic Freya | 2006-04-07 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Starless -- welcome to philosophy! Fact is, you can’t prove ANY theory right. |
| User | Starless Knight | 2006-04-07 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | I am american, and I like sophie’s world *pout*
hehehehe, It’s just scary, if you let yourself really belive in the possiblities . . . what if we are really just characters in a book? I’M BUSTING OUT!!!! lol - but seriously, you can’t prove the theory wrong . . . but you can’t prove it right. You just have to take reality on trust - but trust in what or whom? It’s creepy when you begin to let your mond wonder . . . |
| User | Fantastic Freya | 2006-04-04 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Sophie’s World is low fat... America’s world is low and flat... |
| User | Fantastic Freya | 2006-04-04 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Sophies World is low fat. |
| User | Fantastic Freya | 2006-04-04 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | The funny thing with philosophy is, once you get into that mode of thinking there’s virtually no piece of writing you can’t understand. The trouble is, getting people into that mode of thinking in the first place, because it’s so horribly daunting to many. How many great philosophical minds have in fact been lost to the ages because of the snobbery of the intellectual elite? |
| User | Starless Knight | 2006-04-04 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Cool - I think Philosophy has been way over complicated as well, but I also recognize that there are things, a sort of historic base of knowledge, that needs to be studied as well. There’s more than meets the eye with this ’lofty’ subject, lol. I’m no good with dates and such myself, but I believe a knowledge of prominent philosophers as well as a base knowledge of the time period and mind set they were working out of really can give you a good push in the right direction. Sadly, I am one of the more traditional ’academists’ and I do see the need for a radical change, but yet, I’m still partial to a traditional way of study . . . it’s a viscious cycle, heheheh. |
| User | Fantastic Freya | 2006-04-03 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | We had a long (and somewhat drunken) debate about the novel after a philosophy tutorial at university once -- the "purists" were saying that it’s not right to simplify the ideas expressed in such a way, as if somehow philosophy should be kept for the academics. I so strongly disagreed with this I refused to buy any more drinks for them (that’s serious business at university, I assure you!). Sophie’s World did what should have been done long ago -- demystified and untangled the academic jargon so often associated with philosophy (I’m sure a lot of those guys use big words because it’s the only way they can convince themselves they’re more intelligent than everyone else) and made it quite clear that philosophy, or a philosophical way of thinking, is something for everyone (or if not everyone, then a whole lot more people than can be bothered struggling through Heidegger or Nietschze).
Philosophy has a bad reputation among non-academics because it is made out to be lofty and esoteric, when in fact it’s just trying to understand existence -- so good for Sophie’s World, that’s it’s main achievement as far as I’m concerned. |
| | |
