Philosphy: What Are Your Beliefs/ideology?

[lamujer]

Please explain this in layman terms if you want to understand..

I understand it like that. So I need not explain it in layman's terms.

I wonder what gave you the idea that I do not understand what I wrote.

[mikellogz]

Of course you do..

 

I am who don't.. can you?!

[mikellogz]

I can't imagine how can you be a 3 persons (Aristotle, Plato, Socrates) in one?! They have difference, right?

 

Please explain the "some" and the "way" on your posts?

[lamujer]

I can't imagine how can you be a 3 persons (Aristotle, Plato, Socrates) in one?! They have difference, right?

 

Please explain the "some" and the "way" on your posts?

Una sa lahat, yung post mo kasi lumalabas na hindi ko nauunawaan ang philosphy ko. Sabi mo kasi, "Please explain this in layman terms (sic) if you want to understand..."

FYI, nauunawaan ko post ko.

Pangalawa, tinatamad akong mag-explain sa mga taong tamad maghanap ng answers sa mga sarili nilang tanong before sila mag-ask ng direct questions na mali-mali pa ang construction, but I'll provide examples na lang for your benefit. I follow Plato's philosophy when it comes to education (read The Republic for details). I am Aristotelian when it comes to governance (read his Politics for details). I am Socratic when I long for justice and truth (I ask questions, I doubt).

I am not a 3-person person as you assert. Yes they have differences. I merely use different philosophies for different aspects of life. Please use your god-given reason to analyze what I post before you assert anything.

[mikellogz]

Una sa lahat, yung post mo kasi lumalabas na hindi ko nauunawaan ang philosphy ko. Sabi mo kasi, "Please explain this in layman terms (sic) if you want to understand..."

FYI, nauunawaan ko post ko.

Pangalawa, tinatamad akong mag-explain sa mga taong tamad maghanap ng answers sa mga sarili nilang tanong before sila mag-ask ng direct questions na mali-mali pa ang construction, but I'll provide examples na lang for your benefit. I follow Plato's philosophy when it comes to education (read The Republic for details). I am Aristotelian when it comes to governance (read his Politics for details). I am Socratic when I long for justice and truth (I ask questions, I doubt).

I am not a 3-person person as you assert. Yes they have differences. I merely use different philosophies for different aspects of life. Please use your god-given reason to analyze what I post before you assert anything.

 

Sorry.. I viewed you wrong... I expect that you used their Bad Habits :thumbsupsmiley: :thumbsupsmiley: Peace...

[jad]

BE TRUE TO YOURSELF.. kaso di ko magawa for a reason.

[Jourdan]

Annihilation is our destined path.

 

cynicism. so cliche. tsk tsk tsk.

 

 

I'm starting to believe in Deism.

 

fyi, there's nothing in deism that inherent supports "annihilation as our destined path". Deism merely states that there's an impersonal God who already signed, sealed, and delivered a plan for this universe. And whatever that plan is, it only can be understood through the application of reason.

 

But that's just abt the whole of it...there's absolutely nothing in Deism that says the end of humankind is annihilation. In fact, a true Deist will never ever attempt to make a conclusion abt the end game. This is bec. a deist is solely guided by observing the natural world. Since the end game is neither observable at this point in time nor the present renders itself a good vantage point to rationally extrapolate abt the future, a deist concerns himself on the present and that which is readily observable without putting so much emphasis as to what the future holds for men.

 

the conflict between your cynicism and deism clearly shows your very rudimentary appreciation of philosophy. m no longer surprised y u spew so much s@%t.

 

maybe it's time to really look for references and polish up your ideology/philosophy/belief...it's quite embarrasing to be pointed out as an incoherent poser who claims more of himself what he truly has.

 

but if there's something to take away from this post, it is that I now understand where you draw ur inspiration for your fanatical insistence on predestination.

 

"There are no miracles on this world. There are only inevitabilities, accidents and what you will do."

 

if the outcome is inevitable, then what is the essence of doing "what you will do"? If there's predestination, then why bother? let's turn the table and i invite you, a non-believer, to defend your crappy version of cynicism+deism.

[Jourdan]

Platonic in some, Aristotelian in some. But always for truth and justice the Socratic way.

 

hahaha...it's like you espouse the whole array of philosophies!!!

 

I am interested how you blend Platonism with Aristotle's philosophy...or if ever you even tried to blend them together. Care to expound on your philosophy?

 

And before you think m implying you know nothing of what u wrote, it's not that. I know you do judging by how terse yet meaningful this post is (I particularly like the last sentence; that gives away the fact that you know what u speak of).

 

I am only interested to know whether you really did attempt to blend them together or you adopt a form that simply follows the function; that you only adopt Plato when it's convenient to do so and pick Aristotle whenever it's the one better suited for the job.

 

By the way, I am essentially an existentialist who leans towards Heidegger (and veers away from Sartre's)...I think you can already tell that from the way I wrote my posts.

 

But of course, still an Aristotelian when I deal with the issues/concens of the natural world.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Jourdan

[lamujer]

cynicism. so cliche. tsk tsk tsk.

 

 

 

 

fyi, there's nothing in deism that inherent supports "annihilation as our destined path". Deism merely states that there's an impersonal God who already signed, sealed, and delivered a plan for this universe. And whatever that plan is, it only can be understood through the application of reason.

 

But that's just abt the whole of it...there's absolutely nothing in Deism that says the end of humankind is annihilation. In fact, a true Deist will never ever attempt to make a conclusion abt the end game. This is bec. a deist is solely guided by observing the natural world. Since the end game is neither observable at this point in time nor the present renders itself a good vantage point to rationally extrapolate abt the future, a deist concerns himself on the present and that which is readily observable without putting so much emphasis as to what the future holds for men.

 

the conflict between your cynicism and deism clearly shows your very rudimentary appreciation of philosophy. m no longer surprised y u spew so much s@%t.

 

maybe it's time to really look for references and polish up your ideology/philosophy/belief...it's quite embarrasing to be pointed out as an incoherent poser who claims more of himself what he truly has.

 

but if there's something to take away from this post, it is that I now understand where you draw ur inspiration for your fanatical insistence on predestination.

 

 

 

if the outcome is inevitable, then what is the essence of doing "what you will do"? If there's predestination, then why bother? let's turn the table and i invite you, a non-believer, to defend your crappy version of cynicism+deism.

he's just starting to believe in deism. I don't think the wordings will be accepted by some deists.

[lamujer]

hahaha...it's like you espouse the whole array of philosophies!!!

 

I am interested how you blend Platonism with Aristotle's philosophy...or if ever you even tried to blend them together. Care to expound on your philosophy?

 

And before you think m implying you know nothing of what u wrote, it's not that. I know you do judging by how terse yet meaningful this post is (I particularly like the last sentence; that gives away the fact that you know what u speak of).

 

I am only interested to know whether you really did attempt to blend them together or you adopt a form that simply follows the function; that you only adopt Plato when it's convenient to do so and pick Aristotle whenever it's the one better suited for the job.

 

By the way, I am essentially an existentialist who leans towards Heidegger (and veers away from Sartre's)...I think you can already tell that from the way I wrote my posts.

 

But of course, still an Aristotelian when I deal with the issues/concens of the natural world.

please refer to post no. 79 or 80.

[Jourdan]

he's just starting to believe in deism. I don't think the wordings will be accepted by some deists.

 

wow. birds of the same feather...are indeed the same (looney) birds!!! it's so amazing that ur flock are very supportive of one another that you'd trade reason for loyalty!!!

 

he's just..."starting"? still, there's no point to blabber incoherently. if one's unsure if he's going to be coherent, then shut the hell up.

 

some deists? wow!!! qualifiers!!! funny how atheists would qualify their positions to differentiate one group from the other yet lump the whole of theists into one looney bunch!!! talk abt double standards!!!

 

if you can qualify, how come we can't???

 

what of the wordings will not be accepted by some deists???

Edited February 24, 2009 by Jourdan

[slimguyph]

What do I believe in?

 

I believe there is a God who made everything. If you study nature, the human body and astronomy, there's no way nobody designed all of this.

 

I believe this God cares about us. And that He has a plan.

 

I believe this because I've seen things in my life which are not random, but designed.

 

I believe that Love is the best thing to have and to give in this life.

 

I believe I need to be the best in everything that I do, and to encourage others to be the best in what they do.

 

I believe that the Philippines need us now more than ever to get this country back into shape. No to living abroad.

 

I believe that all of us will die and that we have one shot in making something in this life. So don't f'up.

 

I believe that someday, I will see God face to face, and I hope to thank Him for all He's given to me.

[einnad]

I believe that there is but one GOD

 

and i am not HIM.

[lamujer]

wow. birds of the same feather...are indeed the same (looney) birds!!! it's so amazing that ur flock are very supportive of one another that you'd trade reason for loyalty!!!

 

he's just..."starting"? still, there's no point to blabber incoherently. if one's unsure if he's going to be coherent, then shut the hell up.

 

some deists? wow!!! qualifiers!!! funny how atheists would qualify their positions to differentiate one group from the other yet lump the whole of theists into one looney bunch!!! talk abt double standards!!!

 

if you can qualify, how come we can't???

 

what of the wordings will not be accepted by some deists???

how sure are you that i am of the same feather as eternachaos?

how sure are you that i am an atheist?

are deists the same everywhere?

oh i forgot. you're a genius.

[Jourdan]

how sure are you that i am of the same feather as eternachaos?

how sure are you that i am an atheist?

are deists the same everywhere?

oh i forgot. you're a genius.

 

nah, i wasn't sure. i can't be sure. my position was an inference, in case u'r at lost for words. there's such a thing called educated guess. :upside: