Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Mentor

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Gaza assault
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:13 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Mentor

 (Read 4896 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Mentor
     OP - September 28, 2013, 11:11 AM
    Hey!

    I know I haven't been on in a really long time but college and life in general has been sucking my soul. I realized recently that, strangely enough, during the time I'd been on CEMB my arguing and essay writing skills were actually stronger and this is because of the nature of some of the topics on here (the are blowjobs halal thread, for example Tongue - kidding). I'd like to study philosophy at university and would really appreciate if anyone on here with an interest or knowledge in philosophy could message me, or post on this thread with absolutely anything that they deem helpful -- a debate would really help my arguing skills.

     I have a fair amount of knowledge, so I'm not entirely useless - I have read quite a few works, both canonical and modern by Nietzsche, Camus, Plato, Descartes, Aristotle and Dostoevsky. I'd describe my own philosophical stance as that of an Absurdist although it errs on Nihilism a lot of the time.
    "The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline toward the religion of solitude."


    "i used to steal my sisters barbies so i could take their clothes off and perv on them" - prince spinoza
  • Mentor
     Reply #1 - September 28, 2013, 11:13 AM
    schizo to thread, schizo to thread..
    Before it gets too late, you will find escape.
  • Mentor
     Reply #2 - September 28, 2013, 11:15 AM
    YES HES PERFECT WHERE IS HE FIND HIM FOR ME
    "The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline toward the religion of solitude."


    "i used to steal my sisters barbies so i could take their clothes off and perv on them" - prince spinoza
  • Mentor
     Reply #3 - September 28, 2013, 12:41 PM
    z10??
    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    Quote from: arX on May 01, 2011, 03:33 AM
    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Mentor
     Reply #4 - September 28, 2013, 02:02 PM
    why not yourself, Billy?
    "The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline toward the religion of solitude."


    "i used to steal my sisters barbies so i could take their clothes off and perv on them" - prince spinoza
  • Mentor
     Reply #5 - September 28, 2013, 02:10 PM
    Hey mate, post something and I'll reply. Thus the argument begins. Oh and don't worry to much about what it is, I can argue for something that in reality I don't agree with or am against. Go nuts Afro
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Mentor
     Reply #6 - September 28, 2013, 02:22 PM
    Okay, question: when Descartes refers to 'God' in his meditations, what exactly is he alluding to? Is he alluding to a god like Spinoza's, boundless and infinite, to be found everywhere at all times, inseparable from his creation? Or is he alluding to a God who is a separate entity or being? Also, he asserts that as we are not perfect, the idea of perfection must have been implanted in us by something which is (and nor can we have achieved it by thinking of perfection as the opposite of our imperfection - as one thinks of cold as the absence of heat, because you cannot comprehend imperfection unless you have some initial idea of perfection against which to measure it), what do you think of this argument for a divine being?
    "The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline toward the religion of solitude."


    "i used to steal my sisters barbies so i could take their clothes off and perv on them" - prince spinoza
  • Mentor
     Reply #7 - September 28, 2013, 03:25 PM
    Quote from: Rendezvous on September 28, 2013, 02:02 PM
    why not yourself, Billy?


    My knowledge of philosophy is very superficial compared to some of the other guys here, but if there's anything I feel I contribute I will do  Smiley
    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    Quote from: arX on May 01, 2011, 03:33 AM
    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Mentor
     Reply #8 - September 28, 2013, 03:29 PM
    I'm not familiar with this philosopher, but Descartes argument for a divine being (as you've laid it out) is superficial at best. The idea that the only explanation for striving for better is divine intervention has no merit outside of himself and those who desperately want to believe in a guardian/caretaker and will accept any line of thought that agrees with this. It's nonsense, and lazy nonsense at that.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Re: Mentor
     Reply #9 - September 28, 2013, 05:16 PM
    Quote from: Rendezvous on September 28, 2013, 02:22 PM
    Okay, question: when Descartes refers to 'God' in his meditations, what exactly is he alluding to? Is he alluding to a god like Spinoza's, boundless and infinite, to be found everywhere at all times, inseparable from his creation? Or is he alluding to a God who is a separate entity or being? Also, he asserts that as we are not perfect, the idea of perfection must have been implanted in us by something which is (and nor can we have achieved it by thinking of perfection as the opposite of our imperfection - as one thinks of cold as the absence of heat, because you cannot comprehend imperfection unless you have some initial idea of perfection against which to measure it), what do you think of this argument for a divine being?


    The argument falls apart when you consider the fact that existence with regards to the pondering subject is a logical (a priori) predicate and not an actual (a posteriori) predicate. As in, we can conceive of a being to exist, but that does not augment/potentiate its existence, unless you're a solipsist who believes that everything that is, is the immanent (with regards to the mind).
  • Mentor
     Reply #10 - September 28, 2013, 06:27 PM
    Quote from: schizo on September 28, 2013, 05:16 PM
    The argument falls apart when you consider the fact that existence with regards to the pondering subject is a logical (a priori) predicate and not an actual (a posteriori) predicate. As in, we can conceive of a being to exist, but that does not augment/potentiate its existence, unless you're a solipsist who believes that everything that is, is the immanent (with regards to the mind).


    Ah, yes. (I agree with your reasoning, however, I am going to play devil's advocate here and argue a moot point as if I believe it to be authentic). If we are finite beings, if everything in our immediate environment is finite, if the universe itself is finite, then how can we possibly comprehend the idea of an infinite being unless such an infinite being exists to have given us this idea of infinity?
    "The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline toward the religion of solitude."


    "i used to steal my sisters barbies so i could take their clothes off and perv on them" - prince spinoza
  • Mentor
     Reply #11 - September 28, 2013, 06:33 PM
    We can think of infinite inasmuch as it is an abstract mathematical concept of the mind, no?

    Unless you are going to discount language entirely. But then, wouldn't you argue that we can't speak about any sort of concept, even the finite?
  • Mentor
     Reply #12 - September 28, 2013, 06:37 PM
    Quote from: schizo on September 28, 2013, 06:33 PM
    We can think of infinite inasmuch as it is an abstract mathematical concept of the mind, no?


    I guess so, but what he is asking is how the idea came to enter human consciousness. Did we come to understand infinity by understanding our own finite nature and then thinking of a polar opposite?
    "The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline toward the religion of solitude."


    "i used to steal my sisters barbies so i could take their clothes off and perv on them" - prince spinoza
  • Mentor
     Reply #13 - September 28, 2013, 06:46 PM
    Quote from: Rendezvous on September 28, 2013, 06:37 PM
    I guess so, but what he is asking is how the idea came to enter human consciousness. Did we come to understand infinity by understanding our own finite nature and then thinking of a polar opposite?


    Of course, there is a level of hermeneutical/phenomenological speculation here, seen as the manner in which we express concepts are tied to language. Ultimately a full comprehension of such would have to bypass language and rationality and seek that ineffable explanation in the drunken gaze of experience. At which point the infinite being we are talking about is Descartes' subjective infinite, not an objective infinite.

    This is where Ghazzali presages him, actually.
  • Mentor
     Reply #14 - September 28, 2013, 07:07 PM
    I majored in philosophy and then went into the same dead-end kitchen jobs I did before and during college, but hey now I was a line cook with a philosophy degree! Tongue I really haven't been interested in it for years though.
    fuck you
  • Mentor
     Reply #15 - September 28, 2013, 07:37 PM
    I got in to an argument with some bimbo on facebook a month or so ago, who claimed to have been to uni, who then suggested I must be doing philosophy or be a philosopher because I was so stupid. (in spite of the fact that I do sociology and backed up everything I said)

    This was after she said she would shit on my head.  Grin

    I don't get it of course, I see all these philosophy people talking all their smart stuff and feel emasculated, so how this idea that it is stupid, or unemployable came about, just fucking stumps me.  :/

    Anyone Ren isn't going to be a line cook (not knocking you lol), she's going to be an Oxbridge graduate who takes the world by storm and shows people like that blonde bimbo, that philosophy students are not to be dismissed.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Mentor
     Reply #16 - September 28, 2013, 08:46 PM
     Cry

    Anyways when I was in school I saw a study done on undergrads with different majors and their scores on various graduate school entrance exams except for medical school. Only major that scored higher across the board was mathematics. So yeah your FB nemesis is an idiot.
    fuck you
  •  
     Reply #17 - September 28, 2013, 09:34 PM
     
  • Mentor
     Reply #18 - September 29, 2013, 12:44 PM
    Quote from: schizo on September 28, 2013, 06:46 PM
    Of course, there is a level of hermeneutical/phenomenological speculation here, seen as the manner in which we express concepts are tied to language. Ultimately a full comprehension of such would have to bypass language and rationality and seek that ineffable explanation in the drunken gaze of experience. At which point the infinite being we are talking about is Descartes' subjective infinite, not an objective infinite.

    This is where Ghazzali presages him, actually.


    Yes, you're right. And seeing as there is no way of ever finding out what 'infinite' means to Descartes or indeed to anyone other than ourselves, the argument is rendered moot. But, then, is there any point in debating anything at all, because, you and I for example, could be debating whether or not spinach is good for children, however, how can I be certain that your idea of 'spinach', 'good' and even 'children' is the same as mine? Of the three of those examples, however, only one is 'metaphysical' but the concept for all three exists in the mind. Also, please elaborate re: Ghazzali. Who was he?

    "The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline toward the religion of solitude."


    "i used to steal my sisters barbies so i could take their clothes off and perv on them" - prince spinoza
  • Mentor
     Reply #19 - September 29, 2013, 01:19 PM
    Quote from: Rendezvous on September 29, 2013, 12:44 PM
    you and I for example, could be debating whether or not spinach is good for children, however, how can I be certain that your idea of 'spinach', 'good' and even 'children' is the same as mine?

    That’s Wittgenstein’s beetle in a box argument…
  • Re: Mentor
     Reply #20 - September 29, 2013, 02:12 PM
    Quote from: Rendezvous on September 29, 2013, 12:44 PM
    Yes, you're right. And seeing as there is no way of ever finding out what 'infinite' means to Descartes or indeed to anyone other than ourselves, the argument is rendered moot. But, then, is there any point in debating anything at all, because, you and I for example, could be debating whether or not spinach is good for children, however, how can I be certain that your idea of 'spinach', 'good' and even 'children' is the same as mine?


    Insofar as it is restricted to a common language game? As in, it has been arrived at by common consensus. But yes, as a whole, debating anything is theoretically pointless. Welcome to the only game in town. Nietzsche is superb jouissance.

    Quote from: Rendezvous on September 29, 2013, 12:44 PM
    Of the three of those examples, however, only one is 'metaphysical' but the concept for all three exists in the mind. Also, please elaborate re: Ghazzali. Who was he?



    Ghazzali is the theologian credited with the decline of science and philosophy in the islamic world. He essentially argued that reason leads to agnosticism and doubt, denied causality of temporal bodies, that kind of thing. see: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=24337.0
  • Mentor
     Reply #21 - September 29, 2013, 02:20 PM
    Quote from: schizo on September 29, 2013, 02:12 PM
    Insofar as it is restricted to a common language game? As in, it has been arrived at by common consensus. But yes, as a whole, debating anything is theoretically pointless. Welcome to the only game in town. Nietzsche is superb jouissance.


    A quick google search of jouissance leads me to assume you are referring to Slavoj Žižek's philosophy? Would you care to point me in the right direction?

    "The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline toward the religion of solitude."


    "i used to steal my sisters barbies so i could take their clothes off and perv on them" - prince spinoza
  • Mentor
     Reply #22 - September 29, 2013, 02:22 PM
    Quote from: schizo on September 29, 2013, 02:12 PM
    Ghazzali is the theologian credited with the decline of science and philosophy in the islamic world. He essentially argued that reason leads to agnosticism and doubt, denied causality of temporal bodies, that kind of thing. see: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=24337.0


    Reading up on that now, thanks!
    "The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline toward the religion of solitude."


    "i used to steal my sisters barbies so i could take their clothes off and perv on them" - prince spinoza
  • Mentor
     Reply #23 - September 29, 2013, 02:25 PM
    Quote from: Rendezvous on September 29, 2013, 02:20 PM
    A quick google search of jouissance leads me to assume you are referring to Slavoj Žižek's philosophy? Would you care to point me in the right direction?



    Lacan, not Žižek.
  • Mentor
     Reply #24 - September 29, 2013, 02:26 PM
    Yep, Lacan. but anyhow.

    That is rather difficult, seen as Zizek isn't linear — scatty philosophy, as it were. But I was more generally using the term to denote the orgasmic enjoyment of pain
  • Mentor
     Reply #25 - September 29, 2013, 02:41 PM
    Quote from: Kodanshi on September 29, 2013, 02:25 PM
    Lacan, not Žižek.


    Duly noted, thanks!

    Quote from: schizo on September 29, 2013, 02:26 PM
    Yep, Lacan. but anyhow.

    That is rather difficult, seen as Zizek isn't linear — scatty philosophy, as it were. But I was more generally using the term to denote the orgasmic enjoyment of pain


    In which case, I co-sign your statement re: Nietzsche.
    "The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline toward the religion of solitude."


    "i used to steal my sisters barbies so i could take their clothes off and perv on them" - prince spinoza
  • Mentor
     Reply #26 - September 29, 2013, 04:38 PM
    Quote from: Rendezvous on September 28, 2013, 02:22 PM
    Also, he asserts that as we are not perfect, the idea of perfection must have been implanted in us by something which is (and nor can we have achieved it by thinking of perfection as the opposite of our imperfection - as one thinks of cold as the absence of heat, because you cannot comprehend imperfection unless you have some initial idea of perfection against which to measure it), what do you think of this argument for a divine being?

    I think it's stupid. Perfect is a meaningless word to me divorced from further context. It's not a complete sentence to say something is perfect. Perfect at what?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Mentor
     Reply #27 - September 29, 2013, 04:43 PM
    Right with you there Ishina.

    Perfect compared to what? How do we know that that being is not imperfect?

    Do we not at times confuse perfect with better?

    A car is better than a donkey cart, but an aeroplane could do a better job, or even the DeLorean, or wait until technology advances to a stage in which we are able to transport ourselves (Beam me up Scotty).

    Those who have used these arguments have been working within an extremely flawed, limited theoretical framework. The philosophers were good, but not great. I don't place them on the pedastal that I used to.
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Re: Mentor
     Reply #28 - September 29, 2013, 07:45 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on September 29, 2013, 04:38 PM
    I think it's stupid. Perfect is a meaningless word to me divorced from further context. It's not a complete sentence to say something is perfect. Perfect at what?


    Anselm's ontological argument in Proslogian chapter 3. A necessary being must by definition exist otherwise he is not perfect/isn't necessary.
  • Mentor
     Reply #29 - September 29, 2013, 07:54 PM
    1. By definition, my unicorn is the most perfect unicorn that can be conceived of.
    2. But if my unicorn did not exist in reality, we could imagine a unicorn that had all the other properties of my unicorn but that also existed in reality, and this unicorn would be greater than my unicorn.
    3. Since by definition my unicorn is the most perfect unicorn that can be conceived of, this is impossible.
    4. Therefore, my unicorn must exist in reality.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »