Philosophy, Riddles and complete mind[bleep]s

[Jeffwilson99]

Sigh. You people should start reading up on some proper philosophy, anything by David Hume would be a good start.

[nine naked men]

Adding to the inane posts.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUfC-nZOszA

[Dupin]

Adding to the inane posts.

 

[spoiler=Vid]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUfC-nZOszA

 

His voice isn't great, but there are some good puns in there.

 

[spoiler=Maybe inappropriate, so I put it in hide tags]Lol'd @ "You can suck on his Balzac"

 

[Cassynder]

If you have an accident, can you also have a purpose?

[Da_Latios]

Some that I've picked up along the way:

 

Is it better to tell a sick man he is well, or a well man that he is sick?

 

Why is it that religious people believe they have better morals than non-theists? If the only thing stopping you from killing someone is a belief in the giant security camera in the sky, you have mental issues.

 

Look around you. Would any of this be any different if there really was a god?

 

We are beginning to find planets outside our own solar system which are suitable for human life. Yet, nobody alive now will ever get to see these planets. It's a sad, sad reality.

 

A better question than 'What is the meaning of life?' would be 'Is there a meaning to life?'. We are here. That's all we know. We don't need a purpose; we're not here for any reason. We just are.

 

What if there was nothing? What if the universe never came into existence? What if nothing had ever existed, ever? Try to imagine it, you can't, but it is interesting to try.

 

The glass is neither half full, nor is it half empty. Merely, the glass contains half its available capacity of liquid. One may also argue that the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.

 

A common misconception about atheism is that atheists cannot be spiritual. Quite the contrary; it's perfectly possible for an atheist to disappear into a cave for days, lost in meditation. What atheists don't do, however, is create the assumption of a supernatural force or claim divine relations from that spiritual experience.

 

When a person dies, their consciousness (or as some like to call it, a soul) does not go anywhere. It is just gone. When you build a house out of lego bricks and then dismantle it and place the pieces back in the box, the house did not go in the box with the pieces. The house was an arrangement, much like ourselves.

[Pirate_Felix]

Sigh. You people should start reading up on some proper philosophy, anything by David Hume would be a good start.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMANUEL KANT WAS A REAL PISSANT WHO WAS VERY RARELY STABLE

HEIDEGGER HEIDEGGER WAS A BOOZY BEGGAR WHO COULD THINK YOU UNDER THE TABLE

DAVID HUME COULD OUT-CONSUME SCHOPENHAUER AND HEGEL

AND WITTGENSTEIN WAS A BEERY SCHWINE WHO WAS JUST AS SCHLOSED AS SCHLEGEL

 

THERES NOTHING NIETZSCHE COULDNT TEACH YE

BOUT THE RAISING OF THE WRIST

SOCRATES HIMSELF WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED

 

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,

On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away;

Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,

Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;

A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!

[fastortoise]

I've been thinking a lot about "now" and how it probably doesn't exist. No, it definitely doesn't exist, I'm just not familiar enough with philosophy to properly explain myself. It helps that one of my professors is a member of the international board of the advanced study of spacetime (or something nutty like that).

[Zygimantas]

I've been thinking a lot about "now" and how it probably doesn't exist. No, it definitely doesn't exist, I'm just not familiar enough with philosophy to properly explain myself. It helps that one of my professors is a member of the international board of the advanced study of spacetime (or something nutty like that).

Damn it, now you just made me curious and I don't understand what your talking about <_<

[Bows]

 

Make sense of this.

[Sam]

How about this?

[Alg]

Dammit memes... :wall:

[Flodder450]

Is the glass half empty of half full?Half full

 

If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is around to hear it, is it really a sound?There is,noboby is around to hear it, but there is sound

 

If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done? You have failed to succed and succeded to fail

 

What are the faults, if any, in Plato's Republic? (never heard of this)

 

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? NEW

Caught in a landslide

No escape from reality

Open your eyes

Look up to the skies and see

with my awnsers in bold

[Omnitec]

I suppose on the half full or half empty thing you could say empty = Nothing, and thus half of nothing is still nothing :P So it'd be half full

[krimi]

Everything is subjective. Nothing is objective.

[Zierro]

Everything is subjective. Nothing is objective.

 

What about your statement? Subjective or objective?

[Zygimantas]

Everything is subjective. Nothing is objective.

 

What about your statement? Subjective or objective?

Definitely subjective.

[Alg]

Everything is subjective. Nothing is objective.

 

What about your statement? Subjective or objective?

Definitely subjective.

What if objectivity is subjective?

[Zygimantas]

Everything is subjective. Nothing is objective.

 

What about your statement? Subjective or objective?

Definitely subjective.

What if objectivity is subjective?

It is.

[Dupin]

Everything is subjective. Nothing is objective.

 

What about your statement? Subjective or objective?

Definitely subjective.

What if objectivity is subjective?

It is.

Prove it.

 

 

I've been thinking a lot about "now" and how it probably doesn't exist. No, it definitely doesn't exist, I'm just not familiar enough with philosophy to properly explain myself. It helps that one of my professors is a member of the international board of the advanced study of spacetime (or something nutty like that).

The past and future don't exist either. All you have are your memories and your hopes. Hopes are nothing to go on, and memories are completely unreliable.

 

What is anything if everything is nothing?

[Alg]

I've been thinking a lot about "now" and how it probably doesn't exist. No, it definitely doesn't exist, I'm just not familiar enough with philosophy to properly explain myself. It helps that one of my professors is a member of the international board of the advanced study of spacetime (or something nutty like that).

The past and future don't exist either. All you have are your memories and your hopes. Hopes are nothing to go on, and memories are completely unreliable.

 

What is anything if everything is nothing?

An interesting game.

 

We still perceive reality as something, most people don't think that hard about it. It being just the way our chemical and electricity fueled brains choose to see it doesn't make it any less of whatever it is, hm?

[Zygimantas]

Everything is subjective. Nothing is objective.

 

What about your statement? Subjective or objective?

Definitely subjective.

What if objectivity is subjective?

It is.

Prove it.

 

I can't ;)

[Alg]

I can't ;)

You did.

[fastortoise]

I've been thinking a lot about "now" and how it probably doesn't exist. No, it definitely doesn't exist, I'm just not familiar enough with philosophy to properly explain myself. It helps that one of my professors is a member of the international board of the advanced study of spacetime (or something nutty like that).

The past and future don't exist either. All you have are your memories and your hopes. Hopes are nothing to go on, and memories are completely unreliable.

 

What is anything if everything is nothing?

An interesting game.

 

We still perceive reality as something, most people don't think that hard about it. It being just the way our chemical and electricity fueled brains choose to see it doesn't make it any less of whatever it is, hm?

I'm going out on a limb and posting a drunken post in a philosophy thread:

 

It's time to explain: let's call the people who inly believe that the present exists are "prensentists". They have to explain how things come into (from the past) to out (the future) of existence. Let's take for axemaple the dude who travels from point A to point B but only travels half the distance each hour. He'd need an infinite amount of time before reaching point B, right? The problem with this paradox is that people assumed that distance was divisable but that time was not. if a distance of one meter is traveled by a body for one second, the body will travel half a meter for half a second and so on, and will not need an infinite amount of time to reach the end point B. But there's another problem - if time is indeed indivisable then it must include both past and future - which is not the case. Therefore, time IS divisable but the "now" or "present" as we know it is not. Or else thingsg get too funky. WEIIIIIIIRD!

[Shiny]

I've been thinking a lot about "now" and how it probably doesn't exist. No, it definitely doesn't exist, I'm just not familiar enough with philosophy to properly explain myself. It helps that one of my professors is a member of the international board of the advanced study of spacetime (or something nutty like that).

The past and future don't exist either. All you have are your memories and your hopes. Hopes are nothing to go on, and memories are completely unreliable.

 

What is anything if everything is nothing?

An interesting game.

 

We still perceive reality as something, most people don't think that hard about it. It being just the way our chemical and electricity fueled brains choose to see it doesn't make it any less of whatever it is, hm?

I'm going out on a limb and posting a drunken post in a philosophy thread:

 

It's time to explain: let's call the people who inly believe that the present exists are "prensentists". They have to explain how things come into (from the past) to out (the future) of existence. Let's take for axemaple the dude who travels from point A to point B but only travels half the distance each hour. He'd need an infinite amount of time before reaching point B, right? The problem with this paradox is that people assumed that distance was divisable but that time was not. if a distance of one meter is traveled by a body for one second, the body will travel half a meter for half a second and so on, and will not need an infinite amount of time to reach the end point B. But there's another problem - if time is indeed indivisable then it must include both past and future - which is not the case. Therefore, time IS divisable but the "now" or "present" as we know it is not. Or else thingsg get too funky. WEIIIIIIIRD!

 

Your drunken posts are slightly more legible than mine.

[i_love_burritos]

You people drunkpost too ? Sad TBH [though I'm guilty of it as well]. If you're both drunk and on the computer it means either :

 

a.) You're drinking alone

b.) You don't enjoy being drunk

or,

c.) Your level of drunkenness differs from mine

but most probably,

d.) You just wasted 700mls of highclass goon.