Jump to content

Welcome to Rune Tips, the first ever RuneScape help site. We aim to offer skill guides, quest guides, maps, calculators, informative databases, tips, and much more to help you get the most from the Massive Online Adventure Game, RuneScape, by Jagex Ltd © 2009.

Report Ad

Welcome to Forum.Tip.It
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Philosophy, Riddles and complete mind[bleep]s


  • Please log in to reply
689 replies to this topic

#661
Dupin
[ Display Name History ]

Dupin

    Hobgoblin Killer

  • Members
  • 1,659 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined:24 December 2009
  • RuneScape Status:Retired


That's strange, but what's the point? Does each soul have its own set of moods and reactions or something?


How it was explained no they would not. Each soul is exactly the same, there is no soul that desires greatness and another mediocrity, nor one that desires good or evil. Argued with the case of twins with the same experience but take different paths in life, such as one becomes someone who helps people like a Dr. and another becomes a serial killer. It isn't the soul that is different but the experiences a person might have had that would influence their path in life.

Right, but I'm asking why they have the whole theory about the soul if it really has no function.

#662
Ring_World
[ Display Name History ]

Ring_World

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined:13 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:Retired



That's strange, but what's the point? Does each soul have its own set of moods and reactions or something?


How it was explained no they would not. Each soul is exactly the same, there is no soul that desires greatness and another mediocrity, nor one that desires good or evil. Argued with the case of twins with the same experience but take different paths in life, such as one becomes someone who helps people like a Dr. and another becomes a serial killer. It isn't the soul that is different but the experiences a person might have had that would influence their path in life.

Right, but I'm asking why they have the whole theory about the soul if it really has no function.


I am not sure, just part of their cultural beliefs I guess? It was something mentioned in my Philosophy class discussing the World Religions and I thought I would tell everyone here.

#663
Zygimantas
[ Display Name History ]

Zygimantas

    Demon Vanquisher

  • Members
  • 2,120 posts




I don't think there has to be a reason for existence, it doesn't have to be meaningful. I think people just get that idea because we always like to make ourselves feel important. But I will not say there is no reason, for I can not know, nor can anyone else. I just don't think there is.

And yet... your actions betray you. If you truely believed what you say, then I can not imagine you actually caring enough about the question to answer it. That's the problem with Nihilism. It's so, so easy to say the words, but nobody ever actually behaves as though they believe the words coming out of their mouths. That is the real test of an ideal: will people actually act as though it were true?

So someone who thinks there is no meaning or reason will do nothing? No. I know that I don't have to do anything. Though I still end up doing stuff just because it does no harm if I do them. It does not mean I care so much. I don't have to care much or put in much effort to do anything. It just happens, seemingly effortless. If I don't get what I am trying to get, then that is perfectly fine. Nothing is ever lost or gained. It just is the way it is. :)


The human brain is designed to keep the body alive. A person will naturally try to stay alive even if he or she doesn't care.

Exactly. I think if one appreciates how limitless and subjective everything is, then they will find themselves enjoying and really living life even more then when they were before. This scares people if they think they are important... but get rid of that idea too and then you're all good :)
99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008
99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009
99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010
99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

#664
Ring_World
[ Display Name History ]

Ring_World

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined:13 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:Retired





I don't think there has to be a reason for existence, it doesn't have to be meaningful. I think people just get that idea because we always like to make ourselves feel important. But I will not say there is no reason, for I can not know, nor can anyone else. I just don't think there is.

And yet... your actions betray you. If you truely believed what you say, then I can not imagine you actually caring enough about the question to answer it. That's the problem with Nihilism. It's so, so easy to say the words, but nobody ever actually behaves as though they believe the words coming out of their mouths. That is the real test of an ideal: will people actually act as though it were true?

So someone who thinks there is no meaning or reason will do nothing? No. I know that I don't have to do anything. Though I still end up doing stuff just because it does no harm if I do them. It does not mean I care so much. I don't have to care much or put in much effort to do anything. It just happens, seemingly effortless. If I don't get what I am trying to get, then that is perfectly fine. Nothing is ever lost or gained. It just is the way it is. :)


The human brain is designed to keep the body alive. A person will naturally try to stay alive even if he or she doesn't care.

Exactly. I think if one appreciates how limitless and subjective everything is, then they will find themselves enjoying and really living life even more then when they were before. This scares people if they think they are important... but get rid of that idea too and then you're all good :)


True Nihilism doesn't exist. People have their values, be it health, taste in music, choice in politics, etc. You may be saying "nothing" is the base of everything and accept the pointlessness of everything including living however you are an emotional being. You will actively seek out things that make you feel good. You will eat when you are hungry, wear warmer clothes when you are cold, talk to people when you are lonely, try and avoid pain when possible, etc.

No one, not even the morbidly depressed person that never leaves their room truly cares about nothing.

#665
Zygimantas
[ Display Name History ]

Zygimantas

    Demon Vanquisher

  • Members
  • 2,120 posts






I don't think there has to be a reason for existence, it doesn't have to be meaningful. I think people just get that idea because we always like to make ourselves feel important. But I will not say there is no reason, for I can not know, nor can anyone else. I just don't think there is.

And yet... your actions betray you. If you truely believed what you say, then I can not imagine you actually caring enough about the question to answer it. That's the problem with Nihilism. It's so, so easy to say the words, but nobody ever actually behaves as though they believe the words coming out of their mouths. That is the real test of an ideal: will people actually act as though it were true?

So someone who thinks there is no meaning or reason will do nothing? No. I know that I don't have to do anything. Though I still end up doing stuff just because it does no harm if I do them. It does not mean I care so much. I don't have to care much or put in much effort to do anything. It just happens, seemingly effortless. If I don't get what I am trying to get, then that is perfectly fine. Nothing is ever lost or gained. It just is the way it is. :)


The human brain is designed to keep the body alive. A person will naturally try to stay alive even if he or she doesn't care.

Exactly. I think if one appreciates how limitless and subjective everything is, then they will find themselves enjoying and really living life even more then when they were before. This scares people if they think they are important... but get rid of that idea too and then you're all good :)


True Nihilism doesn't exist. People have their values, be it health, taste in music, choice in politics, etc. You may be saying "nothing" is the base of everything and accept the pointlessness of everything including living however you are an emotional being. You will actively seek out things that make you feel good. You will eat when you are hungry, wear warmer clothes when you are cold, talk to people when you are lonely, try and avoid pain when possible, etc.

No one, not even the morbidly depressed person that never leaves their room truly cares about nothing.

Sure, I agree.
99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008
99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009
99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010
99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

#666
Zierro
[ Display Name History ]

Zierro

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 8,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A peninsula
  • Joined:24 August 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None
Nihilists value the knowledge of the nature of existence.

How's that for obscurity?

#667
Zealot
[ Display Name History ]

Zealot

    Unicorn Horn

  • Members
  • 214 posts
  • Joined:3 October 2004

I am quoting all the bolded text

1.) You take the cheap way out, to say God transcends logic is a statement not a proof. I ask you for a way to support this claim other then the claim itself.

2.) I am not saying nothing exists but rather why cant nature (by nature I mean the universe, or rather the whole of every universe) existing for all eternity rather then a God existing forever to make it. You didnt answer the question of why you would necessarily need a God for it to come to be.

3.) I am not smart enough to work out the theories of how a universe can spontaneously create itself and what would be outside the universe to be able to allow this to happen, but rather presenting the possibility that this could be the case without the need for a God to direct it.

4.) I am just proposing that nature can work without a God to direct it. If you look at the earth function at one point in time everyone would say that Gods and spirits were controlling the wind, the water, the seasons, etc. I am saying that natural forces that are beyond humans ability to comprehend allow everything to exist by sheer chance rather then by divine will. Of course you could say that God controls these forces but I say that you dont need intelligent design for things to exist.

5.) Alright that was just clarifying what you might have meant

6.) My goal is to explain that it isnt necessary for a God to operate the universe but rather nature could exist on its own. So until you can prove that there are aspects of nature that would be unable to have always existed or spontaneously existed (such as a universe by forces we humans do not fully understand) I stand by my belief that a God would be unnecessary. I am not asking you to force me to accept a God but rather you to prove that nature cannot have existed on its own without the aid of a God.


1: There are some things which transcend logic, on which logic depends. Aristotle wrote a fair amount about what he called "Axioms" in various places (mostly Metaphysics. If you can explain to me the logic of Aristotle's axioms, then I will conceed that perhaps it is necessary for me to give a logical account of God's existance. If not then it is enough to say that His presence/absence is the fundamental fact about all reality (including logic). I would not ask for a proof that a predicate of a predicate of a thing is a predicate of the thing itself, or that the only valid answers to a yes/no question are in fact yes and no, or that a thing can not possess both a property and that property's inverse at the same time, in the same way. Yet show me the logic for any of these things. They are all essential for conducting logic...

I think that when you try, you will find yourself arguing in circles, or forced to say simply that the axioms are true and there is little to be gained by arguing with somebody who denies them.

2: That's the problem! "Nothing exists" is the simplest possible Metaphysic (that is, explanation of everything that exists). I'm sure that you have heard of Occham's Razor, the metaphysical principle that "the simplest explanation is preferable." One of the things which can be derived from it is that when there is surprising complexity we should immediately start wondering why... That is actually the basis of what are today called the sciences. So, obviously the explanation that "nothing exists" does not actually reflect reality--why not? What prevents this state from prevailing? Christianity, by positing a fundamental reality that can not help but exist (God), can overcome this problem, how do you propose to do so?

3: So, basically you just want to insist that a model of reality does not have to include God? If so then we are in agreement. I just doubt that such a model is actually simpler in the way that real Metaphysicians use the word. You have to account for all natural forces and their relations with one another, some form of perpetual energy to feed the system, the system itself, our models of the system, and so on. Occahm's Razor indicates that such a model probably is less preferable to one which really only requires the existance of One Thing.

4: So sheer chance has become your god? Fair enough. However you refer to things which drive our lives and are beyond our control, that is what they are. You can have all the faith that they are out of God's hands you want, and in the end I have no objection to that. I will simply keep my faith that HE is fundamental reality.

6: That was never my intention. Honestly, provided God's existance, He wouldn't want you to be forced to believe in HIM. All the more I hope is to show you that faith in God is reasonable. As long as you recognize that you are building your models based on faith in the base premise (NOT GOD) and that I am building my models based on faith in the base premise (GOD), and that the truth of either of our models depends primarilly on which of the two possibilities really is the case, then I am completely happy.
"He is no fool who gives up that which he can not keep to gain that which he can not lose."
--Jim Elliot

"You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodical Son at least walked home on his own two feet. But who can duly adore that love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape? The words compelle intrare, compel them to come in, have been so abused by wicked men that we shudder at them; but, properly understood, they plumb the depth of the Divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation."
--C.S.Lewis

#668
Dupin
[ Display Name History ]

Dupin

    Hobgoblin Killer

  • Members
  • 1,659 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined:24 December 2009
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

Nihilists value the knowledge of the nature of existence.

How's that for obscurity?

It's not that obscure, it's just a couple big words. It's not very specific either, but yes, Nihilism is a branch of Existentialism (meaning the study of existence), not to be confused with Existentialism (the branch of Nihilism that claims in a meaningless world one must find one's own meaning, through God or otherwise) or Pure Nihilism (my own term, referring to Nihilists who disagree with both Existentialists of the latter type and Absurdists, saying that there is never any reason to live at all).

The confusion with Nihilism stems from the fact that it is still developing, and we won't have solid names or ideas (which, by the way, are never entirely accurate) until later.

#669
Zierro
[ Display Name History ]

Zierro

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 8,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A peninsula
  • Joined:24 August 2006
  • RuneScape Status:None

6: That was never my intention. Honestly, provided God's existance, He wouldn't want you to be forced to believe in HIM. All the more I hope is to show you that faith in God is reasonable. As long as you recognize that you are building your models based on faith in the base premise (NOT GOD) and that I am building my models based on faith in the base premise (GOD), and that the truth of either of our models depends primarilly on which of the two possibilities really is the case, then I am completely happy.


That's the thing with weak atheism. It pretends to be the neutral stance by formulating such a term, implying that we are all born atheists, a rock does not have belief in a god therefore is atheist, etc. Just look at the word "atheism". You have consciously built a set of beliefs based on the notion of god not existing. There's a difference between having the self-ascribed label "without god" and having a reserved opinion on theology. But I guess they really want that sort of leverage.

It's not that obscure, it's just a couple big words. It's not very specific either, but yes, Nihilism is a branch of Existentialism (meaning the study of existence), not to be confused with Existentialism (the branch of Nihilism that claims in a meaningless world one must find one's own meaning, through God or otherwise) or Pure Nihilism (my own term, referring to Nihilists who disagree with both Existentialists of the latter type and Absurdists, saying that there is never any reason to live at all).


I don't know if you got the point or not. Nihilism is about a lack of value when it comes to the nature of existence, yet in order to have such a position, you must first value knowledge. Therefore it is a paradox, suggesting high levels of obscurity.

#670
Dupin
[ Display Name History ]

Dupin

    Hobgoblin Killer

  • Members
  • 1,659 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined:24 December 2009
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

It's not that obscure, it's just a couple big words. It's not very specific either, but yes, Nihilism is a branch of Existentialism (meaning the study of existence), not to be confused with Existentialism (the branch of Nihilism that claims in a meaningless world one must find one's own meaning, through God or otherwise) or Pure Nihilism (my own term, referring to Nihilists who disagree with both Existentialists of the latter type and Absurdists, saying that there is never any reason to live at all).


I don't know if you got the point or not. Nihilism is about a lack of value when it comes to the nature of existence, yet in order to have such a position, you must first value knowledge. Therefore it is a paradox, suggesting high levels of obscurity.

That is correct. In fact, Nihilism is by definition a contradiction because, as humans, it is impossible for us to actually value nothing. To do so would require us to act the same way in every situation, which nobody does.

#671
Ring_World
[ Display Name History ]

Ring_World

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined:13 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:Retired


I am quoting all the bolded text

1.) You take the cheap way out, to say God transcends logic is a statement not a proof. I ask you for a way to support this claim other then the claim itself.

2.) I am not saying nothing exists but rather why cant nature (by nature I mean the universe, or rather the whole of every universe) existing for all eternity rather then a God existing forever to make it. You didnt answer the question of why you would necessarily need a God for it to come to be.

3.) I am not smart enough to work out the theories of how a universe can spontaneously create itself and what would be outside the universe to be able to allow this to happen, but rather presenting the possibility that this could be the case without the need for a God to direct it.

4.) I am just proposing that nature can work without a God to direct it. If you look at the earth function at one point in time everyone would say that Gods and spirits were controlling the wind, the water, the seasons, etc. I am saying that natural forces that are beyond humans ability to comprehend allow everything to exist by sheer chance rather then by divine will. Of course you could say that God controls these forces but I say that you dont need intelligent design for things to exist.

5.) Alright that was just clarifying what you might have meant

6.) My goal is to explain that it isnt necessary for a God to operate the universe but rather nature could exist on its own. So until you can prove that there are aspects of nature that would be unable to have always existed or spontaneously existed (such as a universe by forces we humans do not fully understand) I stand by my belief that a God would be unnecessary. I am not asking you to force me to accept a God but rather you to prove that nature cannot have existed on its own without the aid of a God.


1: There are some things which transcend logic, on which logic depends. Aristotle wrote a fair amount about what he called "Axioms" in various places (mostly Metaphysics. If you can explain to me the logic of Aristotle's axioms, then I will conceed that perhaps it is necessary for me to give a logical account of God's existance. If not then it is enough to say that His presence/absence is the fundamental fact about all reality (including logic). I would not ask for a proof that a predicate of a predicate of a thing is a predicate of the thing itself, or that the only valid answers to a yes/no question are in fact yes and no, or that a thing can not possess both a property and that property's inverse at the same time, in the same way. Yet show me the logic for any of these things. They are all essential for conducting logic...

I think that when you try, you will find yourself arguing in circles, or forced to say simply that the axioms are true and there is little to be gained by arguing with somebody who denies them.

2: That's the problem! "Nothing exists" is the simplest possible Metaphysic (that is, explanation of everything that exists). I'm sure that you have heard of Occham's Razor, the metaphysical principle that "the simplest explanation is preferable." One of the things which can be derived from it is that when there is surprising complexity we should immediately start wondering why... That is actually the basis of what are today called the sciences. So, obviously the explanation that "nothing exists" does not actually reflect reality--why not? What prevents this state from prevailing? Christianity, by positing a fundamental reality that can not help but exist (God), can overcome this problem, how do you propose to do so?

3: So, basically you just want to insist that a model of reality does not have to include God? If so then we are in agreement. I just doubt that such a model is actually simpler in the way that real Metaphysicians use the word. You have to account for all natural forces and their relations with one another, some form of perpetual energy to feed the system, the system itself, our models of the system, and so on. Occahm's Razor indicates that such a model probably is less preferable to one which really only requires the existance of One Thing.

4: So sheer chance has become your god? Fair enough. However you refer to things which drive our lives and are beyond our control, that is what they are. You can have all the faith that they are out of God's hands you want, and in the end I have no objection to that. I will simply keep my faith that HE is fundamental reality.

6: That was never my intention. Honestly, provided God's existance, He wouldn't want you to be forced to believe in HIM. All the more I hope is to show you that faith in God is reasonable. As long as you recognize that you are building your models based on faith in the base premise (NOT GOD) and that I am building my models based on faith in the base premise (GOD), and that the truth of either of our models depends primarilly on which of the two possibilities really is the case, then I am completely happy.


I am not aware of the names of the axiom I proposed or who originally thought of it, however it is apparent that for anything to exist something has always existed. If the universe had a beginning then there must has been an infinite number of universes that already existed and an unseen force that drives the creation of universes. Spontaneous creation is not something I believe can happen, whether we are discussing all of reality or God.

Occahm's Razor points against the existance of a God. Simply put, a God would be more powerful and complex than all of reality to be capable of making it. Therefor it wouldnt be logical to assume a God was responsible for the action. And given the earlier stated axiom that something must have always existed for anything to exist, I conclude that either reality has always existed and nature has worked for all eternity with an unseen force driving the multiverse or a God existed for an indefinite time before making a universe, simply whenever a start date for a universe could have been a God must have existed for an infinite time before that date if the stated situation is true. All I say is that no matter how complex and chaotic reality must be, something that is capable of creating it is even more powerful and complex. It really creates an unnecessary middleman from point A to B.

Yes this is faith driven as much as your belief is, and it is relatively apparent that neither of us are willing to budge on our beliefs about the true nature of the universe so lets talk about a different topic.

By your writing style I am assuming you are quite well read. You write what you say elegantly and back up what you say with evidence. So I am curious, have you head of the book called "The God Delusion"? If so what would you write as a rebuttal to the book as a believer?

Another question, what is your opinion on the Hindu belief of Monism?

#672
Zygimantas
[ Display Name History ]

Zygimantas

    Demon Vanquisher

  • Members
  • 2,120 posts
Nihilism makes sense. Though, if you say nothing exists then you are already saying that "nothing" exists. Therefore at least "nothing" exists, even if it is of absolute no value or purpose. If matter and space came from nothing, then that nothing must of been at least... there is no proper word for it, it must of at least been somehow "aware" of itself. Then somehow out of itself manifestations formed and eventually our brains formed to perceive that "nothing" as something. Basically, everything is made out of "nothing", it just seems like something to the brain, which itself was formed out of nothing. Yea.. it might be tough to grasp :P
99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008
99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009
99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010
99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

#673
Ring_World
[ Display Name History ]

Ring_World

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined:13 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:Retired

Nihilism makes sense. Though, if you say nothing exists then you are already saying that "nothing" exists. Therefore at least "nothing" exists, even if it is of absolute no value or purpose. If matter and space came from nothing, then that nothing must of been at least... there is no proper word for it, it must of at least been somehow "aware" of itself. Then somehow out of itself manifestations formed and eventually our brains formed to perceive that "nothing" as something. Basically, everything is made out of "nothing", it just seems like something to the brain, which itself was formed out of nothing. Yea.. it might be tough to grasp :P


That is Buddhism not Nihilism.

A Nihilist is closer to an athiest then a Buddhist.

#674
Zygimantas
[ Display Name History ]

Zygimantas

    Demon Vanquisher

  • Members
  • 2,120 posts


Nihilism makes sense. Though, if you say nothing exists then you are already saying that "nothing" exists. Therefore at least "nothing" exists, even if it is of absolute no value or purpose. If matter and space came from nothing, then that nothing must of been at least... there is no proper word for it, it must of at least been somehow "aware" of itself. Then somehow out of itself manifestations formed and eventually our brains formed to perceive that "nothing" as something. Basically, everything is made out of "nothing", it just seems like something to the brain, which itself was formed out of nothing. Yea.. it might be tough to grasp :P


That is Buddhism not Nihilism.

A Nihilist is closer to an athiest then a Buddhist.

Buddhists are atheists...
99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008
99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009
99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010
99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

#675
Ring_World
[ Display Name History ]

Ring_World

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined:13 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:Retired



Nihilism makes sense. Though, if you say nothing exists then you are already saying that "nothing" exists. Therefore at least "nothing" exists, even if it is of absolute no value or purpose. If matter and space came from nothing, then that nothing must of been at least... there is no proper word for it, it must of at least been somehow "aware" of itself. Then somehow out of itself manifestations formed and eventually our brains formed to perceive that "nothing" as something. Basically, everything is made out of "nothing", it just seems like something to the brain, which itself was formed out of nothing. Yea.. it might be tough to grasp :P


That is Buddhism not Nihilism.

A Nihilist is closer to an athiest then a Buddhist.

Buddhists are atheists...


Yes but it really comes down to how they live their life, a Buddhist would be dispassionate like a Jedi or something while an Atheist might still desire a permanent universe, system of government, etc.

I guess the main difference between the two is a Buddhist understands there is nothing and an atheist may say there isnt eternal life but may say something still is eternal.

A Nihilist may have a similar belief but how they live is closer to an atheist then a Buddhist

#676
Zygimantas
[ Display Name History ]

Zygimantas

    Demon Vanquisher

  • Members
  • 2,120 posts




Nihilism makes sense. Though, if you say nothing exists then you are already saying that "nothing" exists. Therefore at least "nothing" exists, even if it is of absolute no value or purpose. If matter and space came from nothing, then that nothing must of been at least... there is no proper word for it, it must of at least been somehow "aware" of itself. Then somehow out of itself manifestations formed and eventually our brains formed to perceive that "nothing" as something. Basically, everything is made out of "nothing", it just seems like something to the brain, which itself was formed out of nothing. Yea.. it might be tough to grasp :P


That is Buddhism not Nihilism.

A Nihilist is closer to an athiest then a Buddhist.

Buddhists are atheists...


Yes but it really comes down to how they live their life, a Buddhist would be dispassionate like a Jedi or something while an Atheist might still desire a permanent universe, system of government, etc.

I guess the main difference between the two is a Buddhist understands there is nothing and an atheist may say there isnt eternal life but may say something still is eternal.

A Nihilist may have a similar belief but how they live is closer to an atheist then a Buddhist

Ah yes, that's why I became attracted to certain teachings that can be considered Buddhist. More experiencing what I "believed", rather than just talking about it.
99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008
99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009
99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010
99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

#677
Zygimantas
[ Display Name History ]

Zygimantas

    Demon Vanquisher

  • Members
  • 2,120 posts
Interesting?


99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008
99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009
99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010
99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

#678
Ring_World
[ Display Name History ]

Ring_World

    Dragon Slayer

  • Members
  • 5,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined:13 October 2007
  • RuneScape Status:Retired
This thread has all but been abandoned. I almost remade it but I will just bring back the original.


Here is one I would like answered.

Ship of Theseus Riddle:
Information from Wikipedia

Greek legend
According to Greek legend as reported by Plutarch,
The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.
—Plutarch, Theseus


Plutarch thus questions whether the ship would remain the same if it were entirely replaced, piece by piece. Centuries later, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes introduced a further puzzle, wondering: what would happen if the original planks were gathered up after they were replaced, and used to build a second ship. Which ship, if either, is the original Ship of Theseus?

#679
Vezon Dash
[ Display Name History ]

Vezon Dash

    Black Knight Trainer

  • Members
  • 3,276 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Joined:12 December 2008
  • RuneScape Status:None

This thread has all but been abandoned. I almost remade it but I will just bring back the original.


Here is one I would like answered.

Ship of Theseus Riddle:
Information from Wikipedia

Greek legend
According to Greek legend as reported by Plutarch,
The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.
—Plutarch, Theseus


Plutarch thus questions whether the ship would remain the same if it were entirely replaced, piece by piece. Centuries later, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes introduced a further puzzle, wondering: what would happen if the original planks were gathered up after they were replaced, and used to build a second ship. Which ship, if either, is the original Ship of Theseus?


The one made of new planks is the real ship. It was at one time the real ship and it will continue to be.

#680
Myweponsg00d
[ Display Name History ]

Myweponsg00d

    The Pittsburgh Pirate

  • Members
  • 2,741 posts
  • Joined:16 November 2004




Nihilism makes sense. Though, if you say nothing exists then you are already saying that "nothing" exists. Therefore at least "nothing" exists, even if it is of absolute no value or purpose. If matter and space came from nothing, then that nothing must of been at least... there is no proper word for it, it must of at least been somehow "aware" of itself. Then somehow out of itself manifestations formed and eventually our brains formed to perceive that "nothing" as something. Basically, everything is made out of "nothing", it just seems like something to the brain, which itself was formed out of nothing. Yea.. it might be tough to grasp :P


That is Buddhism not Nihilism.

A Nihilist is closer to an athiest then a Buddhist.

Buddhists are atheists...


Yes but it really comes down to how they live their life, a Buddhist would be dispassionate like a Jedi or something while an Atheist might still desire a permanent universe, system of government, etc.

I guess the main difference between the two is a Buddhist understands there is nothing and an atheist may say there isnt eternal life but may say something still is eternal.

A Nihilist may have a similar belief but how they live is closer to an atheist then a Buddhist


An atheist is a person who does not believe in a god or gods. Other than that, an atheist can think/believe/talk about anything. An atheist can be a communist, democrat, republican, anarchist, whatever. The only thing that atheism is is a disbelief of god. Talking about "atheists' desires" for a permanent universe or government system is totally silly.
Posted Image
Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users