Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
Fallible wrote:I think I'll go to the London Tower with the seagulls, I'd never heard of it before. I'd only heard of the Tower of London with the ravens.
Paul1 wrote:Chatting to a friend yesterday who's very much into philosophy, questioning his existence, etc. He brings up interesting ideas.
I find I usually don't question things on a philosophical level as much. Basically, if there's no evidence and logic for some given statement, nor some concrete example or experience I can repeat, or some other way of making it real - I tend to think, guiltily, that it's just a waste of time ruminating about it.
Example: What is the nature of existence? My answer: I only care about the evidence, mathematics and what I can experience around me. What can I possibly learn from idly thinking about things I can't even test/calculate/act upon?
SpeedOfSound wrote:The ravens just sat around and pecked at the crown jewels.
That's why it's not popular at cocktail parties. Cheddar is a notoriously analytical personality type.Tracer Tong wrote:Anglophone cheese? My cheddar's not so much of a conversationalist.
I like to believe some people are just natural at not bothering with philosophy.Boyle wrote:At the very least, I think people should bother with enough philosophy to be able to tell when they are, in fact, bothering with philosophy.
it was a seagull and it shit on my sons head. The ravens just sat around and pecked at the crown jewels. Or is it jeweled crown?
edit: checking my photo evidence it may have been a pigeon.
Fallible wrote:
Since it's here, I'd suggest that what We People call it is what it's called. I wouldn't go to the US and say I wanted to go to the Liberty Statue, because well, who really cares what those funny little American folk call it.
Thommo wrote:
I think as a preliminary exercise we need to perform a conceptual, syntactical and hierarchical analysis of the words "believe", "natural" "bothering" and "philosophy.
Nb. also "I" "to" "some" "are" and "with".
BlackBart wrote:How to think and not what to think.
BTW Interesting fact; if you click on the first link in any Wikipedia article, then click on the first link in that article and so on and so on, invariably you end up at 'Philosophy'
Can you justify caring about only this specific restricted domain of objects? If not, then you appear to hold this stance for no reason, if so, then you have demonstrated a virtue of philosophy.Paul1 wrote:I only care about the evidence, mathematics and what I can experience around me.
Who cares? Philosophy isn't the business of "idly thinking about things I can't even test/calculate/act upon", it is the theory and practice of argumentation about the underlying.Paul1 wrote:What can I possibly learn from idly thinking about things I can't even test/calculate/act upon?
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest