BASIC thinking....a TEST of how rational we are. (page 6)

Terry

fire does not exist, it occurs

Now, we both know you are playing with words. You can hardly call this a serious discussion anymore!

Saying something that does not exist can occur is just wacky.

kid-A

"e.g. fire does not exist, it occurs"

Uh-huh. Stick your hand in a bonfire for a few minutes and tell us if your third-degree burns actually "exist" or have simply "occurred"....LOL....

Hellrider

Is love a really existing thing? More exactly, is love real in the way a cloud is real? If you have trouble answering this your rational thinking is being impaired by failure to distinguish a concept from a defintion.
Concepts are labels. Definitions allow us to know how real or abstract the concept really is!

The term "concept" is a concept. The term "definition" is a concept. The term "real" is a concept. The term "abstract" is a concept. You have no way of knowing if a cloud is real, and certainly no more real than a feeling, because the cloud that you see is an image. You have no way of knowing if there really is a cloud there, or if there is, that it actually has the shape it seems to have. All you have is the "sache fûr mich", not the thing in itself. To me, love is certainly more real than a cloud, simply because it interests me a whole lot more. I don`t care about clouds...

Terry

The term "concept" is a concept. The term "definition" is a concept. The term "real" is a concept. The term "abstract" is a concept. You have no way of knowing if a cloud is real, and certainly no more real than a feeling, because the cloud that you see is an image. You have no way of knowing if there really is a cloud there, or if there is, that it actually has the shape it seems to have. All you have is the "sache fûr mich", not the thing in itself. To me, love is certainly more real than a cloud, simply because it interests me a whole lot more. I don`t care about clouds...

On your desktop you have folders. Inside the folders you have files. Inside the files you have data. Call them all folders if it makes you happy but it doesn't alter the usefulness of them in the least.

To say you have "no way of knowing" if a cloud is real is to ignore two hundred years of science! Is this discussion taking place in a time warp? Are you sitting in a parlour in the Middle Ages?

Love may be more "real" to you than a cloud IF YOU HAVE NO EDUCATION--but, why should you deliberately ignore everything known by science to make a silly point??

proplog2

Terry:

Rational people avoid insignificant conflict.

Hellrider

To say you have "no way of knowing" if a cloud is real is to ignore two hundred years of science! Is this discussion taking place in a time warp? Are you sitting in a parlour in the Middle Ages?

No, what you are doing, is ignoring (ironically enough) several hundred years of sceptical philosophy. Yes, I can see the cloud, with my eyes, but really, all i know is that I have an impression of a cloud in the skies! I have no way of knowing whether there really is such a thing as a cloud. All I know is that the impression I have of the things I see, is usually stronger than the impressions of the things I feel. You should read up on your Kant and Hume. Silly as this may seem, I originally objected to your line of thought because I felt (...) that you underestimated feelings. Your (empirical) approach is worthless. None of the thought you put into your first post, would have been there in the first place, had it not been for your particular feelings on this subject! There is no thought without feeling. Is there feeling in 2 plus 2? Perhaps not, but that doesn`t even mean that 2 plus 2 is an eternal "truth". You should read contemporary philosophy. Start with someone that goes straight to the core of this issue, W.v.O.Quine: http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/quin.htm

Love may be more "real" to you than a cloud IF YOU HAVE NO EDUCATION

I`m not really interested in this kind of discussion. I jumped ship long before the university of Awake got me, if you didn`t, don`t take it out on me.

AuldSoul

Does gravity exist, Terry? Does energy exist? Define them for me, please, objectively.

Gravity isn't a thing, energy isn't a thing, movement isn't a thing, friction isn't a thing, a hell of a lot that is labeled aren't "things" at all.

Is love a really existing thing?

By the criteria you used at the outset, fire doesn't exist. Love is a chemical reaction. To quote you, fire is a chemical reaction.

Fire is not a thing, events are not things, chemical reactions are events.

A forest fire isn't subjective. The trees burn, the smoke swirls, the animals run for their lives and you call the fire department. Each living thing experiences their own particular drama which is experienced subjectively. However, that does not change any part of the forest fire at all (objective.)

By this criterion, love is equally real and existing. It produces discernible effects, arguing against its existence in practical life is as stupid as arguing against the existence of fire in practical life. But the reality is that fire is not a thing.

You want to talk from both sides of the table, pure rationality and subjective practicality. But you only shine the spotlight of pure rationality on those things you wish to reason into non-existence. I am calling you on it. If you can present your argument for fire being real without hyperbole or calling me silly or questioning whether I am serious then we will have a discussion, otherwise I submit that love is real to an equal degree that fire is real.

If you cannot demonstrate otherwise, why should I credit you with the capacity to prove your point according to your OWN criteria? You've shown me no reason for me to do so.

By the by, I held the Watchtower Society to the same standard. They failed miserably.

AuldSoul

Farkel

Terry,

:Which of the above are actually existing things and which are conceptual constructs?

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, but in my simple brain, this all boils down to something very simple:

:Darkness and light.

Concept.

:Something and nothing.

Concept.

:Heat and Cold.

Concept.

:Happiness and sadness.

Concept.

:Love and Hate

Concept.

If all was light, there would be no darkness. If there was only a something, there could be no nothing, and vice-versa. If there was only heat, there would be no cold. If there was only happiness, there could be no sadness.

NONE of these things are actually "existing" things. They are only things in our perception.

Reality, whatever THAT is, is what we say it is. It may not be what it REALLY is, because in our little world it is a matter of agreement about what it is. However, our agreement doesn't make a fact: it only makes an agreement about what is or is not a "fact" in our puny little brains.

Your challenge is meaningless. It is all a matter of our observation about the way it is, and if you don't like my observation about the way it is, then I have ANOTHER observation about the way it is! Give it up. You are urinating in a down wind.

Farkel

MinisterAmos

Everything is relative and conceptual.

Hot and cold depend on perception and physical capability as does light and dark. Hate and love depend on training and personal experience.

SPAZnik

Basic thought: Hmm, each set of words on Terry's list are opposites.
Basic thought: AuldSoul said Respectfully.
Basic thought: proplog cracks me up.
Basic thought: If we had sound on here, coulda heard Terry's intonation at "is that too much to ask?"
Basic thought: Maybe I should stop resisting being branded irrational and take the damn "TEST".
Basic thought: Would that be irrational?
Basic thought: Farkel's posts make me horny.
Basic thought: What was the question again?
Basic thought: I wonder if straight jackets come in orange tie-dye.
Basic thought: I love this thread.

BASIC thinking....a TEST of how rational we are.

Share this