Philosphy: What Are Your Beliefs/ideology?

[bluegreen717]

Transcendental idealism! Kant was never wrong!

 

But I tend to move between idealism and realism...I'd like to think I'm not as mature as some people see me as.

[Jourdan]

Transcendental idealism! Kant was never wrong!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

agree.

 

But I tend to move between idealism and realism...I'd like to think I'm not as mature as some people see me as.

 

that's the whole point of life...the contrast between what ought and what is. the struggle of course is to either dissolve the dichotomy or reinforce it further.

[bluegreen717]

agree. 

that's the whole point of life...the contrast between what ought and what is. the struggle of course is to either dissolve the dichotomy or reinforce it further. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Dissolving the dichotomy is fun, after which...nada. Zip. Boooo-ring. I'd rather drive an even bigger wedge between the two, and watch by the sidelines as philosophers slug it out.

[Jourdan]

Dissolving the dichotomy is fun, after which...nada. Zip. Boooo-ring. I'd rather drive an even bigger wedge between the two, and watch by the sidelines as philosophers slug it out. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

so that would mean u prefer Descartes over Heidegger?

[Jourdan]

what if u espouse the 3rd way? neither u maintain idealism nor would u accept realism...

 

u reject that "ought" of things in themselves...

 

but u won't accept the "is" of things in themselves either...

 

rather, u'd drop everything else and take the "me" perspective defining reality by full recognition of your own biases, tendencies, and self-worth.

[bluegreen717]

what if u espouse the 3rd way? neither u maintain idealism nor would u accept realism...

 

u reject that "ought" of things in themselves...

 

but u won't accept the "is" of things in themselves either...

 

rather, u'd drop everything else and take the "me" perspective defining reality by full recognition of your own biases, tendencies, and self-worth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And try to start my own brand of philosophy and gain followers along the way, only to be deserted in the end because they are only willing to define reality by their own "me" perspective? I have enough loyal fans as is.

 

But I would start with the "me" perspective and try to be phenomenological about it. Works most of the time.

 

And I'm more into Heidegger, Dasein sounds more technical than cogito.

[mig 22]

Transcendental idealism! Kant was never wrong!

 

But I tend to move between idealism and realism...I'd like to think I'm not as mature as some people see me as.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I am not into Kant yet. But I make my own framework.

[Jourdan]

And try to start my own brand of philosophy and gain followers along the way, only to be deserted in the end because they are only willing to define reality by their own "me" perspective? I have enough loyal fans as is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

hmm...u can create a framework by which a "me" philosophy can be both limiting and liberating...

 

you don't have to constrict your followers with your own reality. but you also have to inhibit their adventurous souls from falling into senseless pluralism.

 

the beauty of it all is if you are able to create such a framework whereby your followers are both free to explore their own insights abt the "reality for them" yet feel the compulsion to stay within the bounds of how one develops such a relevant reality.

 

But I would start with the "me" perspective and try to be phenomenological about it. Works most of the time.

 

hmm....kindly elucidate.

 

And I'm more into Heidegger, Dasein sounds more technical than cogito. 

 

really? oh must u hate the circular argument of the Cartesian methodical doubt!

 

and i thought u'd rather wedged them reality and ideas? Heidegger attempted to bridge both hehe...well, he'd maintain the separation still.

 

got one problem with Dasein actually...Heidegger sees it as a given. is it?

[bluegreen717]

hmm...u can create a framework by which a "me" philosophy can be both limiting and liberating...

 

you don't have to constrict your followers with your own reality. but you also have to inhibit their adventurous souls from falling into senseless pluralism.

 

the beauty of it all is if you are able to create such a framework whereby your followers are both free to explore their own insights abt the "reality for them" yet feel the compulsion to stay within the bounds of how one develops such a relevant reality.

hmm....kindly elucidate.

 

Phenomenology requires that you start with "me" (the first person) and by a series of steps, strip the experience down to its essence. My final paper in college was a phenomenology on courtship, in Filipino, and I exceeded the 20-page limit despite shrinking my font size to 9 and reducing margins to 0.5. It was that exhaustive.

 

Now I just do it all in my head. Ten minutes over coffee, tops.

[maldita_overload]

I've been sick for the last few days. While at home, I've saturated myself with Smallville, seasons 1-5. Pretty productive way of spending my days, considering the fact that I had a hard time trying to stand up. During the time spent embedding the young Clark's features into half of my brain, the quarter was busy discussing some fairly irrelevant stuff with the other quarter. I came to some realizations. I realized that Lex Luthor didn't have a choice. I realized that after years of continuous pounding from outside forces, free will can actually disappear. It's amazing what they say about free will. I was always under the impression that we create our own destiny, that we are responsible for the choices we make, and that we should not hold anyone to blame for the actions that we take. Funny, or even crazy, but what if there really is a set path for everybody? What if irregardless of what you do, you will end up in wherever it is meant for you to end up in?

 

 

Lex was more of a victim than the terribly despicable person he was portrayed to be in the early Superman movies and series. Well, they never offered much of an explanation as to how he came about being the villain that he was. From what I gathered, The most obvious cause of Lex turning out to be such a bad apple is the tree. So considering parental, environmental and social influence, where does free will come in? It seems like the choices we make are all set for us, leading us to a predestined end.

 

 

If it's true, then all the times people spend trying to carefully plan out their lives would turn out to be a complete waste of time. I mean, how many times have you made plans that never turned out the way they were supposed to? I bet it happened to you a lot. It sure as hell happened to me. A whole lot of times. If so, then what do we do? If we are living a Truman show, then why exert any effort at all? Jeez.

 

i'm just thinking out loud......

Edited October 18, 2006 by maldita_overload

[Mobius Stripper]

Like a good sport, be a good loser but a better winner.

[ephraim65]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Ephraim65

[X]

Living is nothing more than a journey towards death.

 

So, stop once in a while to smell the flowers on the road.

[chiquezee]

Desire that your life count for something great!

Long for your life to have Eternal Significance.

Don't course through life without a passion.

 

In a nutshell, why live life if your only objective is to die?

 

And ultimately, DON'T WASTE YOUR LIFE.

[mason_rod]

Life is short, and we don't know when we're gonna die...

 

So say what you want to say now, coz death can shut you up FOREVER...