Looking for some Philosophy Links

Hello all-

In my ever continual search of self-improvement and education, I was set on the path today to seek out a philosophy course to aid me in becoming a better thinker and decision maker when I encounter multiple avenues of stress; rather than relying on an emotional 'knee-jerk' decision based on emotion to get me through.

Any links or information would be great - I am of course googling and seeking 'professional' help in the means of a taught course in philosophy, I just wanted to pick the other philosophers in this community.

Thanks, graci, gracias, danke in advance-

KuiXing-2005.

http://www.antionline.com/member.php...&userid=186434

©opy®ight's profile : he is active on a philosophy forum, the link is in his sig.

Hi

In a first step, you might be interested in the ways of thinking
of the great philosophers, beginning with the ancient greek
to contemporary ones - I highly recommend Sophie's World [1],
which is an amusing lecture.

In a second step, you might deepen your "knowledge" a little bit
more, by picking one of them and understand what his/her work is
all about. I really loved to read stuff written by Immanuel Kant[2]
and Bertrant Russell[3] - although both are a real pain in the butt
to read, but their approaches are - unique.

But the third and most important step: Pick a topic of random choice
and develop your own thoughts and ideas. Or try to argue against
one of the great philosophers - find the holes. Or be active in philosophers
forums. Have fun.

/edit:
rereading your post, I got the impression that you also might seek
decision-helping methods rather than "philosophy". You may perform
a google about "work and organizational psychology" and "decision process".
We once had a workshop about all different kind of stuff (something like a
"hat"-method etc), but it was somewhat in the past, and I cannot recall
(what an impact ... :) ) sorry.

Cheers

[1] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...864674-9344858
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

Don't buy philosphy books - read them for free at http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/
All the great works are on there.

Great Link, Negative !!! Thanks, just what I wanted! :)

KuiXing-2005...if I take what you said as it is ( " knee-jerk " " stress " )you don't want philosophy...I would advise, if there is such a thing a "debate forum", or a class in any of the social fields would better serve your purposes. :)

Check out www.third-plateau.org. It's full of people that are experienced in disociative states and they have interesting things to say. There are also entities there reffered to as lurkers and corotards. Beware. There is much BS there, but if you post sincere questions, you will get sincere answers.

Most excellent! Thanks all for the great tips and links - this is what I wanted.

As I was thinking about it last night, I believed that I too needed something more on decision making than philosophy. I believe the person offering me the advice was looking to help me be able to separate my emotional (read: hot-tempered) side from my logical side when encountering various avenues of stress. I believe I will will go after both decision making and philosophy and see where it takes me.

Again - thanks for the great help and links - and the quick response! I knew that this community had philosophers!

KuiXing-2005.

KuiXing...if you must pursue philosophy, as you stated that this is still something you are considering to experiment with...I would suggest that you study Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius...they are simple to read and understand, and are without the rhetoric ... they were two of the greatest self-examining and self-aware philosophers of their time. Most of what they wrote were examinations of themselves.
Epictetus was a slave and Marcus was an Emperor...you won't need any other teachers for your particular needs. :)

COSMOS kicks up some good one's once in a while. For instance some day I would like to revisit an old COSMOS discussion on short period and long period commets versus creation. I am armed with new knowledge on them and the outer planets. :p Some how CopyWrite or Memory, Nemory... and Philosphy seems odd? :D Or is it just me?

Hi RoadClosed !

I don't know what you mean by "good ones" ?

And I don't know how comets relate to creation other than them being a part of creation...perhaps you can make a thread on that so I can see what you mean. I would be interested in reading your theories.

As for Talk Philosophy...I signed-up...made a couple of comments then left and deleted the bookmark. What they have is not philosophy but common rhetoric...which some people thoughly enjoy...it's just not my cup-of-tea. To each their own...as they say.

Oh they aren't my theories. They are those of people who build the probes and ships and send them to Jupiter and the outer friges of the solar system. I just try and pick the one's that make sense. Christian science of the later few decades attempts to dispell what scien**** consdier the age of the universe. I was in a discussion here on several of those items. Their thinking is this, if ANY item of scientific theory can be disproved THEN that single items proves without a doubt the universe is only a few thousand years old. That idea in my opionon is bogus.

So I found myself defending the idea that comets regenerate. The very simple line of thinking is this. Commets cannot be 100s of thousands of years old because, every time they come into the plane of the ecliptic and move around the sun, parts of them are burned off. So it makes sense that after a while they will die. I made a good arguement of why comets still exist based on some limited college coursework and personal reading. But I have since learned many many more about the formation of our solar system, Other - yest other Solar sytems, the mass of comets, their dissipation rates, where they come from, what is beyond pluto, how other stars influence comet trajectories and the like. Sure they are theories but damn good ones. I wouldn't want to disprove creation but the thinking that there should be no comets around now is not accurate. :)

If you search Creation here there are a few discussions along with the speed of light and various items of interest.

"There is no such thing as creation. And I'm a moderator, and I'm always right."

Sorry... just dreaming out loud :D

Hi, RoadClosed,

Unfortunately, science is not my field of study...and creationism is too open to interpretation, there are arguments for both sides of the issue. I try to avoid argueing the no-win situation.

But I would assume, and it would be just an assumption on my part, that if I understand comets correctly they dissipate the closer they get to the sun which causes the tail we see...but as they move away from the sun the tail diminishes...and at the outreaches they re-bulk themselves with ice as it gets colder and this is why they continue their orbit.

Scientists theorize that there are comets like our Haley's comet that have a small orbit ( approx. every 75 years ) and others that have orbits so large that the last time they passed was during the age of dinosaurs ( and some have even speculated that it was one such comet that was the cause of their demise ), orbits that pass every millions of years.

This however does not disprove creationism...I thoughly agree with you about the theological interpretation of creationism...but then...it is just an interpretation based upon the bias and prejudice of the religion or sect that supports that version. One could even say that the " Big Bang ' theory is a creationist theory.

Think in terms of structure...everything that exists has structure..." building blocks "...if you assume that this holds true for everything and you see the universe as being a Whole rather than a collection of individual non-connected parts...then...the universe also has " building blocks " and creates as building blocks do...just a thought.

Eg

The universe is a whole. Gravity does not diminish. It is one of the Forces of nature we do not understand. We can learn from it, predict it, model it and understand it but we do not know "what" it is. Gravity effects all things, the entire universe is connected. All the stars, galaxies and undiscovered tings are all tied togeth in a great cosmological waltz.

Negative is borg, the borg absorb all things. The collective controls cosmos.

I agree whole-heartedly...that the universe is a whole...and we are not individually separated wholes unto ourselves...hence, natural law...the law that says whatever applies to the individual part equally applies to the whole...( eg. cause and effect ).

Sooooo...if you apply this rule to one of it's many logical conclusions...it can be said that the universe, much like ourselves ( being constucted by the same laws ), is constructed and arranged according to it's DNA..." building blocks ".

Which has been known through philosophy long before it ever became science.

Did you know that Anaxagoras...who was one of Socrates teachers...well over a thousand years before, and closer to 2000 years before, the europian scientists...suggested the moon derived it's light from the sun, that the sun was a ball of gas, that the earth revolved around the sun, and the moon around the earth, and the world was round like the moon and sun, among other things. And that his works along with many others were held by the church and were not allowed to be veiwed by the public.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
The universe is a whole. Gravity does not diminish. It is one of the Forces of nature we do not understand. We can learn from it, predict it, model it and understand it but we do not know "what" it is. Gravity effects all things, the entire universe is connected. All the stars, galaxies and undiscovered tings are all tied togeth in a great cosmological waltz.

Negative is borg, the borg absorb all things. The collective controls cosmos.

---

Perhaps Gravity in Unison with Kinetics in the endless ocean of vaccum would support your conveyed visualization of your idea. The Vaccum of Space is an ocean of energy and allows the science of kinetics. Historical motion, if you will...

Ancient man determined the earth was round as well. From something as simple as shadows and logic. Discoveries bult upon one another over thousands of years until we invented the abilities to measure the universe outside of human perception. In that I mean our senses.

By gravity not dimenishing, I mean to say that the gravitational force of the earth and the sun do not go to zero, they dimisinish to inconsequence but the field (if you will) can never fall away completely. Space is not made of nothing. It is filled with gas and microsopic dust. What give the feeling of nothing is the vast distances between objects of significance. So in a sense we are all "glued" together.

Galalieo was one of the last of they early astonomer scientists using mathmatics and pencil to achieve theories and discoveries. He was locked under house arrest for proving with little doubt "anymore", that the earth was not the center of the universe. He did this by noting that moons orbited Jupiter just like a moon obits the earth and that other planets had phases like the moon as it orbited the earth. He had an advantage.... a telesope.

DNA, or the complex moelecules that form things like Amino Acids, are found in meteorites that have hit our planet. To some advance theorists, life, or the foundation of life did not emerge on this planet, but out among the dust clouds.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed

DNA, or the complex moelecules that form things like Amino Acids, are found in meteorites that have hit our planet. To some advance theorists, life, or the foundation of life did not emerge on this planet, but out among the dust clouds.

---

Does this statement have any validity at all? DNA found in meteorites? Maybe from collision of molecules that contain DNA within out atmosphere and our soil.

RoadClosed...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by " ancient man "...but yes...the world was perceived to be round until the church said it was flat...and it was perceived to be a part in the whole with no specific location until the church said it was the centre.

Gravity I can't comment on because I really don't know...so I will go with the impression you are right. It's just not in my field of studies.
As for space itself science has been playing catch-up...they recently discovered ( in the last twenty years ) that space is full of atoms ( not as dense as with the earth but nevertheless there ).

Galileo invented the telescope but his theories/facts were derived from others...he worked for the church and therefore had access to the books that were not available to others...and when he sought to prove what he read he was punished by the church.

As science continues it will of necessity prove the theories of true philosophy...that all things are merely differentiations of the same thing, that everything from a rock to man to a planet to the universe is the same...merely constructed ( molded ) in different ways. :)

fraggin...not that RoadClosed needs my help on this...but I think RoadClosed was merely trying to associate a common link...

the foundation of all true philosophy is that everything...literally everything...is the same thing. That there is no difference between a rock and a person...everything is created from the same thing...and DNA is only the beginning to understand that there is a relationship between things.

I am sure over time ( eventually ) we will discover something else...to even prove this further...and eventually will prove that philosophy was right all along. :)

It is only the use of our senses that make us think we are special or unique...but in reality we're not.

Think of it in terms of a rock being like a man with no senses because they are compressed and useless...philosophically speaking, if you knew how...you could make a man from a rock, or a sun, or a computer...because they are made from the same thing :)

And as a consequence of this...once science and religion catches up...this would also prove another philosophical truism...that everything is alive...literally everything. :)

DNA is only one life form. It just happens to be the life form that we are aware of. There have been meteorites found with sugar DNA, but, these were meteorites and not meteors. These items, though from space, were found on our planet. Hence, contaminated with our life forms.
DNA as we know it is a physical code of the life forms that we are aware of.
Ethereal beings are not comprised of DNA that we know of, yet they still exist.
I agree with the theory that all matter in the universe comes from the same origin, but I exclude DNA from my theory.
If you really want to ponder upon a thought, here's a good one.
Strains of fungus spores can survive subspace and absolute zero temperatures and still have the potential to propigate fungi. Some theorize that specific mushrooms are responsible for the development of the human language.

I probably wasn't very clear about the basic truisms of philosophy.

When I said that all things are differentiations of the same thing...I meant all things...not just matter...but what is commonly referred to as non-matter ( eg. thought ) as well.

And when I said that as a consequence all things are alive...that includes your carpet and your flashlight. That they are not dead has already been proven in that the basic structure is not static...the atoms that comprise their structure are moving...and what moves is not dead.

And eventually science will prove this to be the case...but probably not in my kids lifetime or even their kids lifetime...but eventually philosophy will be found true. :)

I realize that this flies in the face of the traditionally held belief that man is " special " and " unique " in the universe...that there is no actual difference between a rock and a man...that both can be made from the other.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Egaladeist
I realize that this flies in the face of the traditionally held belief that man is " special " and " unique " in the universe...that there is no actual difference between a rock and a man...that both can be made from the other.

---

You have the most basesless philosophical theories known to man.... or rock....

Thank-you ! :D

If you had a good dose of disociatives and a furry pillow and a blanket, I think your views may be altered :P

Quote:

---

DNA found in meteorites?

---

Whew - Catching up,

No that statement does not have vilitity, I did a bad job of using the OR statement. If DNA was found in a meteoroite that would conclude life does exist on other planetary bodies. What is found in meteorites is complex molecules once believed to have been formed here on earth. Those molecules include Amina Acids. I am pulling this from memory, but there are more than once documented instances of Amino Acids. And why not? Lets take an example.

Water seems to be the "giver of life" so to speak. We look at Earth and think, wow we have a lot of water. That is true, but in relative terms the earth is dry, a celestrial desert. When compared to the mass of our planet water is only a few miles deep compared to what? 3000 miles of mass. The outer planets have MUCH more water than we do. It's ICE yes but water is not scarce in the solar system. In fact we think there could be a saline ocean under the crust of a moon orbiting Jupiter. And once upon a time there was liquid water on Mars, it had an atmosphere a long time ago and many off the planets have polar caps that extend in the winter and recede in their summers... just like ours. What happened to mars? It's gravitational force and electromagetic force was not strong enough to keep it in place. Even if we could terraform Mars by burning carbon fuels and creating ozone through electronics, the atmosphere would once again, disipate.

Christians scientists argue that amino acids in meteroites are "contaminants" of our own terestrial planet. They don't look very closely at our neighbors floating around the sun. All in the same direction on a plane of their creation.

When I say "ancient man" I mean some 2000 to 4000 BC. Go a few thousand years before that there is no way way to observe anything, just speculate. Some men knew the earth was round. Their knowledge was not really supressed by the church but more lost to time. It would have to be rediscovered but then it was repressed by the church. They have since, I beleive in 1992 recanted and apologized. But I don't blame the church.

I blame men, who like Hitler and Stalin distorted the teachings of their predesecors and used the power granted them for evil.

And now a pholisphical difference and these are my theories. We are special and we are unique. We all share the same building blocks but they are never quite arranged in the same fashion. Venus has an atmoshere that rains sulfer and the pressure is so great that a probe launched by Russia in the 60s (yes 60s) was crushed a few miles into the atmosphere. That was a pisser. ;) Mars has pressure so low that liquid wate cannot exist because the boiling point = to the lquid state. Here on earth water boils at 100 C. On mars it boils at the atmosheric temperature. Jupiter has an atmoshere of hydro-carbons. Methane, Propane etc. Fly over to Jupiter to fill up my BBQ grill. Oh speaking of jupiter it is the only body in the solar system (outside the sun) that emits natural radiation. It actually glows in the sky. The rest of us, including earth only emit what is reflected from the sun. Sure we have radio but we made that. Speaking of radio we now have almost 100 years of radio emission leaving earth. That is enought to ecompass thousands of stars.

A simple Rock cannot make a man, I know it's philisophical but it would have to contain the same elements. Rocks do not, if it did it wouldn't be a rock anymore. It would be a piece of iron, or gold, or salt, or a many number of things until enough of those elements are muddled together into a "super" rock and then it might take another form of substance. The only thing common is the building material. In fact we could be the only form of life or even life itself like us. Making us unique almost to infinity. The feeling of insignificance comes from the vast greatness of the Universe.

Fraggin the difference between a metorite and a meteor is very precise. In fact there is another term. Meteroid - object in space, Meteor - object in the earths atmosphere, meteorite - same object that made it to the ground. Only heavy elements can make it, or one's that are really BIG. One lecture I attended made the case that appoximately 1000 meteorites hit the earth each day. They just plunk right onto the ground, not having the temperature or mass to make a crater.

Life does not equate intelligence. Everything is moving and the space between atoms is enormouse. That carpet is not alive in the sense of intelligence, it is moving sure and in reality it is mostly empty space. What we percieve as a solid are the electromagnetic forces keeping our slippers form traversing the space.

fraggin...these are not my opinions...these are the opinions of those who first pondered them more than 2400 years ago...opinions which I happen to agree with...but then...I don't follow the traditional religious belief that man is a supreme being...or is special or unique...man is just another thing that exists...and if we were to blow the hell out of ourselves tomorrow the universe would not shed a tear...or come to an end just because we're not around to see it ...it would continue unabated just like it does when another creature falls prey to extinction...it is only our ego that thinks we're more than what we are.

If the human race was to fall to extinction tomorrow it would have no more signifigance than the extinction of the dinosaurs.

The universe would not implode out of grief for it's loss.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
Whew - Catching up,


We all share the same building blocks but they are never quite arranged in the same fashion.

A simple Rock cannot make a man, I know it's philisophical but it would have to contain the same elements. Rocks do not, if it did it wouldn't be a rock anymore. It would be a piece of iron, or gold, or salt, or a many number of things until enough of those elements are muddled together into a "super" rock and then it might take another form of substance. The only thing common is the building material. In fact we could be the only form of life or even life itself like us. Making us unique almost to infinity. The feeling of insignificance comes from the vast greatness of the Universe.


Life does not equate intelligence. Everything is moving and the space between atoms is enormouse. That carpet is not alive in the sense of intelligence, it is moving sure and in reality it is mostly empty space. What we percieve as a solid are the electromagnetic forces keeping our slippers form traversing the space.

---

RoadClosed...as to your first point...that's what I said...everything is differentiations of the same thing.

As to your second point...science is still a baby, an infant...it has not even discovered a fraction of what it will in time...only recently they discovered DNA...when I was a kid the talk was how we are like stars and other carbon based life forms...and in time...as I said, they will discover more things...until eventually they will discover that the " body " of everything is the same...contains the same ingredients...so that everything can be made to be this or that by re-arranging those ingredients. I am not saying that a rock can change itself into a man.

Assuming that the above statement eventually is proven to be true...and I believe it will...then a rock would have the same essential ingredients for intelligence but it's " form " does not allow for it whereas our form does...again...differentiations of the same thing.

:)
As to your other remarks they were either not directed to me or I've accepted them as is because I don't know enough about them to make a comment either way. :D

As to the feeling of importance...this is just a part of our natural instinct for survival...which all thinking crearures have. Even a lion believes that it's life is of more value than any other...and it is this thinking process that maintains it's survival. :)

Feeling important isn't the implication. There are only a finite number of building blocks and we are made of the same stuff. In our known universe, that probably won't change because the ability to reach other galaxies will never come, there are only a few "raw materials" to make everything. Add in a few unknowns and it doesn't change the fact that there are only a small number of items that can be arranged to make any form within a few 100,000 light years from us. But arranging those into certain electromagnetic properties, then molecules, then complex molecules and then binding those together in an infinite amount of ways makes everything unique in its form. No two objects can be the same. Importance and relevance are not, but I could argue that if we are indeed the ONLY beings capable of analyzing their existence then we would indeed be important and special. The knowledge that we are all made "from" the matter of stars is indeed true. We have already proven that. The force that holds us together is electromagnetism and gravity (there are 2 other as well, strong and weak). Now say in the future the ability comes to make an exact copy of me (like a Star Trek teleporter). That does not negate the fact that I, the unique body, existed. That new insignificant being will only be an exact copy for a very brief instance, that is until the forces and the environment of our C universe start to act on it, moving the particles in unique fashion.

Then you agree !

:D

But the same stuff may not be what we think it is now...we may find new " stuff " over the next 2400 years if we're still around. And the stuff we think that makes us up now may be found to be part of other stuff.

Essentially you haven't said anything in opposition to what I said...except that you still think there is a specialness to the human product. And that is the way all thinking creatures are designed to think...and the reason we have conjured up all sorts of religions and ideologies...it is natural to think of ourselves as special...but that doesn't make it true.

But you have said one thing that I am really surprised and impressed by...because it is rarely said and even less believed..." finite number of building blocks " !
This, again, is a very old philosophical argument...that the universe is finite, and that is why it must constantly re-cycle itself...because nothing is added or taken away from it...so it must constantly re-new itself. The old philosophers argued that there are many universes, like many galaxies, and are themselves only a part of something even larger. Something that "is" infinite and cannot be understood by us. That we live in but one of many universes. That a universe expands and contracts...as the Buddhists call it...the involution and evolution of the worlds. Which is not possible if a universe was infinite in itself.

I didn't say the universe is finite. I said there is a finite amount of "stuff" out there. We could find other forms of matter we have not discovered based on what we are able to "sense" But it wouldn't be much more. Otherwise the entire notion that we are all made of the same stuff would fall apart, if there is say another table of elements we discover in another galaxy then, we are NOT made of the same stuff at all. And we are indeed very unique.

//EDIT as for the Universe, there is good evidence that it will never close in on itself. As science progresses things are learned and then shifted. For instance in the 3rd grade I was appalled at the fact that our sun could someday explode. That is now false. It stands to reason that if this universe exists, another one could but they would never touch one another. It wouldn't be the same as another dimension.

By saying " finite number of building blocks " the implication of a finite universe is there.

We could easily discover many new things that apply to everything...I'm sure people would have scoffed at the idea of DNA if it was presented 100 years ago. Who knows what 2400 years would bring...or even another 100. But that " everything is merely differentiations of the same thing "is, at present, neither proven nor disproved...and probably won't be for quite some time....as I have said.

And I doubt we will discover another table of elements..just undiscovered items of extreme interest that will once again revolutionize the way we think things work. I don't think we're near the end of knowing...I think science is just beginning and has a very long way to go.

Just co-existing universes in something infinite...as galaxies co-exist in our universe.
;)

Everything falls back upon the two original statements that I made:

1. That everything is differentiations of the same thing.

2. That everything is alive.

Quote:

---

By saying " finite number of building blocks " the implication of a finite universe is there.

---

The implication is the Universe good very easily go on forever and not have an end.

It could...but we've, that is you and I, have already established long ago that space itself has substance...therefore if things are finite ( which is the only logical conclusion that one can arrive at if things re-cycle themselves...for if things could be added or taken away re-cycling would be contradictory...and very unnecessary ) then space must be too...having "mass"...which it does.

For if you apply the same rules...of scientific fact as we understand it...everything that has "mass" occupies a finite space...a rock has mass, we have mass, planets have mass, and space has mass...and the same rules apply to all things that have mass...they are finite. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Egaladeist
..for if things could be added or taken away re-cycling would be contradictory...and very unnecessary ) then space must be too...having "mass"...which it does.

For if you apply the same rules...of scientific fact as we understand it...everything that has "mass" occupies a finite space...a rock has mass, we have mass, planets have mass, and space has mass...and the same rules apply to all things that have mass...they are finite. ;)

---

If this is the case, we need to disprove that law of physics that states matter cannot be created or destroyed.

As for your finite space theory, you cannot state that all things have mass if there are things you have never seen nor studied. Science has yet to prove or disprove if neurtinos have mass. Theoretically they do not. This would be a logical reason behind their behavior.
when it comes down to analyzing size, you're pretty much guessing once you get outside of our visible sector of the universe. Everything that humans know about space~size~relationship is based on a close minded mathematical frame of reference.

All things do not have mass. Even if you discount the space between particles, which is not "Space" as in the heavens, sky, the cosmos. It is space, as in the absence of anything. I stated that space (the cosmos) was not empty. Meaning there are particles floating around in it but they have space (nothing) between them and even space in the particles themselves. I would push my finger right through this keyboard because the space in between the particles of the plastic and my flesh are so imense they would pass through one another, unmolested. If not for the magnetic fields holding them at bay.

So there is empty space. But ok, even if you discount the space between particles, there are particles and fields of energy that do not have mass. One arguable point is... light. Which is a constant in our perceivable universe subscribing to Einstein's relativistic view.

(Egal = this is not my original answer I told you I accidently deleted. Still haven't gotten the inspiration for that)

Funny... I was just thinking about PMing you yesterday about that...then I thought the thread probably already has those flashing dates...so why resurrect it.

Whenever you're ready, RoadClosed...you know where to find me. :D :)