Philosophy, Riddles and complete mind[bleep]s

[Zygimantas]

It's not getting what we want that makes us happy, but it's not wanting that makes us happy.

 

 

This. Is. The. Quintessential. Post. On. This. Thread.

 

 

 

All this thread is awkwardly worded phrases.

 

 

I believe it is getting what we want does not make us happy, but not having the need for a want of want, is what makes us happy.

Well what I'm trying to say is that people strive for happiness. It is our ultimate goal, or so we think. But when we get what we are trying to achieve, when we get to the point that we think will give us happiness, it doesn't really give us happiness. Sure, after you reach a goal you feel happy for a bit, but that soon goes away as you realize you aren't happy and another goal takes place. So we end up in an endless cycle of setting goals. When we don't reach our goals we are upset, when we reach our goals we are still upset. But if you just let go of all your goals, just live life for what is and stop trying to make it something else, enjoy what you have, transcend your ego, and be happy with now... then, you will become truly... enlightened :)

[Skeptical]

I don't think he was criticizing your statement, but mocking philosophy in general. I couldn't say why, but that's the way I read it.

[Saru Inc]

Both yes and no, while I do believe Ziggy's question is a valid one, I was more of mocking *pseudo* philosophical questions. Like "what is life" or "why are we here" because even though these may seem "deep and inspiring" if you think about it, they are actually not. Also there are tons of yoda-sayings in here. "It's not, why are we here, but its why, are here we are?"

[Saru Inc]

[hide=Philosoraptor dump]

 

[/hide]

 

 

Here, take my soul. For it is all I can give, to be graced by such greatness.

 

 

=

 

 

I love you.

[Zygimantas]

Both yes and no, while I do believe Ziggy's question is a valid one, I was more of mocking *pseudo* philosophical questions. Like "what is life" or "why are we here" because even though these may seem "deep and inspiring" if you think about it, they are actually not. Also there are tons of yoda-sayings in here. "It's not, why are we here, but its why, are here we are?"

Well, I wasn't really trying to ask a question... more like... expressing a feeling, a thought... in words.

[Saru Inc]

Both yes and no, while I do believe Ziggy's question is a valid one, I was more of mocking *pseudo* philosophical questions. Like "what is life" or "why are we here" because even though these may seem "deep and inspiring" if you think about it, they are actually not. Also there are tons of yoda-sayings in here. "It's not, why are we here, but its why, are here we are?"

Well, I wasn't really trying to ask a question... more like... expressing a feeling, a thought... in words.

 

Well yea, but I mean I meant it as a question, because I took it as asking for an opinion.

[Zygimantas]

Both yes and no, while I do believe Ziggy's question is a valid one, I was more of mocking *pseudo* philosophical questions. Like "what is life" or "why are we here" because even though these may seem "deep and inspiring" if you think about it, they are actually not. Also there are tons of yoda-sayings in here. "It's not, why are we here, but its why, are here we are?"

Well, I wasn't really trying to ask a question... more like... expressing a feeling, a thought... in words.

 

Well yea, but I mean I meant it as a question, because I took it as asking for an opinion.

Well I think that even wording things differently might change the meaning of things, because it makes you look at something differently. It's all subjective, and if you see something from another point of view then it might look different.

[Saru Inc]

Both yes and no, while I do believe Ziggy's question is a valid one, I was more of mocking *pseudo* philosophical questions. Like "what is life" or "why are we here" because even though these may seem "deep and inspiring" if you think about it, they are actually not. Also there are tons of yoda-sayings in here. "It's not, why are we here, but its why, are here we are?"

Well, I wasn't really trying to ask a question... more like... expressing a feeling, a thought... in words.

 

Well yea, but I mean I meant it as a question, because I took it as asking for an opinion.

Well I think that even wording things differently might change the meaning of things, because it makes you look at something differently. It's all subjective, and if you see something from another point of view then it might look different.

 

 

I agree, but sometimes its just asinine.

[Saru Inc]

But isn't everyone's meaning the meaning of life? There certainly can't be a universal opinion.

 

The purpose of a hammer is to hammer nails because thats what the designer of the hammer made it to do but that is obviously not what you mean by purpose, you mean purpose in an objective sense and that doesnt exist. Purpose and meaning are inherently subjective but as far as most people are concerned the only subject need be them.

 

The reason im saying all this is that "how much does candy cost" is a question that makes sense "while what is our purpose" does not make sense and the only reason you would ever possibly entertain a question like what is our purpose is if you still entertained an external center of gravity (Religion).

 

If you are an athiest and still ask these questions it is you avoiding what the bible told you to avoid (which is to make yourself your center of gravity) and if you are a theist, questions like these come with an external center of gravity

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_self

 

 

Well what I mean is, philosophers have been debating this for like... eons. Obviously. And they've mainly come to a conclusion of life is what you make it. Of course it's still up to a debate, I just don't think of it as a good question. I prefer questions based on philosophical ideas, such as Determinism (the inability to ever *make* a choice) does it exist?

[Dupin]

Well what I mean is, philosophers have been debating this for like... eons. Obviously. And they've mainly come to a conclusion of life is what you make it. Of course it's still up to a debate, I just don't think of it as a good question. I prefer questions based on philosophical ideas, such as Determinism (the inability to ever *make* a choice) does it exist?

That's a common mix-up of the definition of "free will". Technically, all of our decisions are based on specific stimuli, so if those stimuli were known, our decisions could be predicted. In this way, we really have no choice - it's already been determined which choice we will make. However, that does not mean we have no option, it just means that the decision we make could be predicted.

 

So we have the ability to make a choice, but not the ability to choose differently from what that choice will be.

[Zierro]

I always thought of the meaning of life being to have the opportunity to ponder the meaning of life.

 

And here's one that likes to knock my socks off: The limit of infinity.

 

So we have the ability to make a choice, but not the ability to choose differently from what that choice will be.

 

Humanity must make a decision here: Do I want to be a stagnant cog in the machine, or do I want to be an active cog in the machine? The universe has decided that laziness and inertia bore me, so I'd rather be turning.

[Saru Inc]

And that's the thing, my philosophy teacher, who does believe in determism, gave this as an example:

 

 

"You did not choose anything in your life, even what you wore today. Your preference for that orange shirt MADE you wear the shirt, there is no other option, because your preference is for the color orange." I mean, that's just asinine. It's like "yea ok... but"

[Dupin]

I always thought of the meaning of life being to have the opportunity to ponder the meaning of life.

 

And here's one that likes to knock my socks off: The limit of infinity.

 

So we have the ability to make a choice, but not the ability to choose differently from what that choice will be.

 

Humanity must make a decision here: Do I want to be a stagnant cog in the machine, or do I want to be an active cog in the machine? The universe has decided that laziness and inertia bore me, so I'd rather be turning.

On infinity, if the universe is constantly expanding, what does it expand into? And if there is nothing outside the universe, how can it expand at all?

 

I think your question to humanity only fits the misinterpretation of the idea. Having no choice does not mean you have to sit around and not make choices, it just means that what you do could be predicted.

 

And that's the thing, my philosophy teacher, who does believe in determism, gave this as an example:

 

"You did not choose anything in your life, even what you wore today. Your preference for that orange shirt MADE you wear the shirt, there is no other option, because your preference is for the color orange." I mean, that's just asinine. It's like "yea ok... but"

Give 'im the classic "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms" line. You did choose, but the choice was already made, so you didn't have a choice.

[Zierro]

I think your question to humanity only fits the misinterpretation of the idea. Having no choice does not mean you have to sit around and not make choices, it just means that what you do could be predicted.

 

Determinism does tend to lead people to the nihilistic idea of "What's the point?" and sometimes even becoming lethargic about life in general. My point is that sitting around and not making choices only contributes to the staleness they wish to run away from.

[Assume Nothing]

And that's the thing, my philosophy teacher, who does believe in determism, gave this as an example:

 

 

"You did not choose anything in your life, even what you wore today. Your preference for that orange shirt MADE you wear the shirt, there is no other option, because your preference is for the color orange." I mean, that's just asinine. It's like "yea ok... but"

 

There is no arguing with determinism on a daily sense.

 

The way to prove or disprove a theory are with the oddest variables, such as time travel. If humanity every figures out how to go back in time, would all preformed destiny then be undone?

 

For example if the cure for cancer is found in the year 2150 and a wayward time traveler takes it to todays date, would the people who died in his world be alive? and would that alter the world of the time traveller that delivered the cure to us?

 

All I can think of when writing this is the movie Donnie Darko, If you haven't seen it I really think you should.

 

The Grandfather Paradox.

 

My personal theory is that it wouldn't ever destroy any universes, but it would most likely 'skew' into a new, alternate universe, preserving whoever that went back in time.

[Zygimantas]

And that's the thing, my philosophy teacher, who does believe in determism, gave this as an example:

 

 

"You did not choose anything in your life, even what you wore today. Your preference for that orange shirt MADE you wear the shirt, there is no other option, because your preference is for the color orange." I mean, that's just asinine. It's like "yea ok... but"

 

There is no arguing with determinism on a daily sense.

 

The way to prove or disprove a theory are with the oddest variables, such as time travel. If humanity every figures out how to go back in time, would all preformed destiny then be undone?

 

For example if the cure for cancer is found in the year 2150 and a wayward time traveler takes it to todays date, would the people who died in his world be alive? and would that alter the world of the time traveller that delivered the cure to us?

 

All I can think of when writing this is the movie Donnie Darko, If you haven't seen it I really think you should.

 

The Grandfather Paradox.

 

My personal theory is that it wouldn't ever destroy any universes, but it would most likely 'skew' into a new, alternate universe, preserving whoever that went back in time.

The Grandfather paradox seems like a simple problem to fix. If the cure was founded in 2150 but someone brought it back to our time then the cure would have been founded in our time now instead of 2150.

[Alg]

The Grandfather paradox seems like a simple problem to fix. If the cure was founded in 2150 but someone brought it back to our time then the cure would have been founded in our time now instead of 2150.

Not sure that would be the grandfather paradox though. Isn't that the thing where a guy time travels to kill his ancestor, preventing himself from being born, and as a result, preventing himself from killing his grandfather? Repeat as necessary

 

Or would it be that the guy brings the cure for cancer back in time, saving everyone who would have died but removing the need to develop the cure in 2150 because they already have it. But if they don't develop it, it wouldn't have been brought back in time.

 

I'm going with the alternate universe thing, if time travel turns out to be possible.

[Zygimantas]

The Grandfather paradox seems like a simple problem to fix. If the cure was founded in 2150 but someone brought it back to our time then the cure would have been founded in our time now instead of 2150.

Not sure that would be the grandfather paradox though. Isn't that the thing where a guy time travels to kill his ancestor, preventing himself from being born, and as a result, preventing himself from killing his grandfather? Repeat as necessary

 

Or would it be that the guy brings the cure for cancer back in time, saving everyone who would have died but removing the need to develop the cure in 2150 because they already have it. But if they don't develop it, it wouldn't have been brought back in time.

 

I'm going with the alternate universe thing, if time travel turns out to be possible.

If a guy went back in time to kill his grandfather then he would have never existed to go back in time and kill his grandfather. Basically if someone is traveling back in time, you would know that they won't kill their grandfather for the fact that they exist to go back in time in the first place.

[Zygimantas]

My philosophy of the day :)

 

 

[Guest Rob]

Parallel universes are a mind [bleep]. If they're real, then there should be an infinite amount of them - meaning everything possible would be happening this moment, in a parallel universe. Everything.

 

So, somewhere in a parallel universe, you are king of the world, and have enslaved the human population. You live in a castle, built out of solid gold. And then every other scenario you could think of.

 

Damn...That's tippy.

[Zierro]

If they're real, then there should be an infinite amount of them - meaning everything possible would be happening this moment, in a parallel universe. Everything.

 

So, somewhere in a parallel universe, you are king of the world, and have enslaved the human population. You live in a castle, built out of solid gold. And then every other scenario you could think of.

 

So, somewhere in a parallel universe, parallel universes don't exist?

 

I don't think infinity implies everything will happen. If we flipped a coin an infinite amount of times, it is theoretically possible that it will never be heads. Or a more realistic example, if someone were to ask someone to say the word "no" and had an infinite amount of time, it is possible that he would never say "no".

[Dupin]

If they're real, then there should be an infinite amount of them - meaning everything possible would be happening this moment, in a parallel universe. Everything.

So, somewhere in a parallel universe, parallel universes don't exist?

Oh, you.

 

It's a good thing time travel and parallel universes don't exist and won't. It leaves more time to deal with this mind [bleep]:

 

There are three princesses. In the morning, you are to marry one of them. You may choose which one. The oldest always tells to the truth. The youngest always lies. The middle sister will sometimes lie and sometimes tell the truth. You want to marry either of the ones who remain constant, but not the middle sister. You may only ask one question, and only to one sister, and only once. What do?

 

Oh, and I figured this applied to "Riddles", which this thread could use more of. And Googling/ going on xkcd is cheating.

[Zierro]

There are three princesses. In the morning, you are to marry one of them.

 

I'd like to see you try and make me.

[Dupin]

There are three princesses. In the morning, you are to marry one of them.

 

I'd like to see you try and make me.

Dude, the youngest one is like 15, and you should see her bod. I've always thought the middle one is the best looking, to be honest, but you've got to follow the rules of the riddle. Anyways, you inherit the throne, so quit being so picky about it.

[Saru Inc]

If they're real, then there should be an infinite amount of them - meaning everything possible would be happening this moment, in a parallel universe. Everything.

 

So, somewhere in a parallel universe, you are king of the world, and have enslaved the human population. You live in a castle, built out of solid gold. And then every other scenario you could think of.

So, somewhere in a parallel universe, parallel universes don't exist?

I don't think infinity implies everything will happen. If we flipped a coin an infinite amount of times, it is theoretically possible that it will never be heads. Or a more realistic example, if someone were to ask someone to say the word "no" and had an infinite amount of time, it is possible that he would never say "no".

 

 

I lol'd so much, then nodded my head in agreement. :thumbup: