307 posts shown.
Madman said:it’s nothing more than sophist nonsense.
Since you seem so content living in your little bubble, I can only wish you the best. However, I really don't think you should be posting on this philosophy board until you've actually cracked open I. canal (even if it's just the high school textbook version). 😉
Madman said:...We didn't create the universe or its laws; we simply exist within them, shaped by their fundamental principles.
We can only ever perceive the universe through the lens of our own human experience.
There is no way for us to truly know what reality looks like to any other sentient being.
Every theory and discovery we claim is really just a human construct.
Objective truth is out of reach; all we have is intersubjectivity—basically, a social consensus.
We live in a world interpreted through our own specific perspective. This interpretation doesn't hold any universal or superhuman value; it belongs solely to us.
Our practical knowledge works well enough to be useful, but from an epistemological standpoint, it might actually be meaningless.
Madman said:The theory of relativity is essentially practically useless at the level of human existence and remains irrelevant to our daily lives...
Madman said:A human remains human regardless of their environment, even if that environment influences them. However, I disagree with the idea that the core essence of humanity vanishes if you remove the community.
If that is true, you need to clarify what actually makes a person human:
- their genetics
- God
- Or something else entirely
I've read about cases where animals raised human children failed to produce individuals who functioned as humans.
Polulud said:Human experience—or what we usually call "common sense"—is fundamentally at odds with the theory of relativity, because from our perspective, time always feels absolute.
We often translate "common sense" as "sound judgment," but I love how A. Einstein described it as nothing more than "the prejudices we accumulate by the age of eighteen."
In a way, you could link that concept to direct perception, though it essentially aligns with what Einstein was getting at.
On a personal level, time always feels relative to us, and you don't need to be Einstein to grasp that feeling. 😉
Polulud said:...he discovered the theory of relativity and similar laws because they are principles that existed in nature long before humans arrived, will remain after we are gone, and actually provided the very foundation that allowed humanity to evolve to a point where we can discover them today.
Aside from relying on faith in those kinds of notions, can you provide any actual, valid evidence for that claim?
You are free to believe in "eternal" laws, or even in things like werewolves and vampires, but that is strictly a matter of personal belief.
The fact is, there is no evidence for them, and they are theoretically impossible—though I suppose one could imagine a scenario where someone might 😁 engineer something similar.
swiftcobra15 said:But honestly, you're just dodging the question...
Is the theory of relativity really "beyond human experience"? It actually grew directly out of our own experiences—I mean, Einstein didn't receive some divine revelation atop Mount Sinai (though even that would be a human experience). How is it that man invented the measurement of time but didn't invent relativity
? What standard are you using to distinguish what is a "human invention" from what is "natural"?
And again, where does this extraordinary human capacity to be "unnatural" come from? Does any other creature possess this ability?
Polulud said::
Since humans are products of nature, one could argue that everything we do is actually natural. But that’s beside the point here. I'm not suggesting humans create categories in opposition to nature; rather, in our development, we feel a need to satisfy certain desires and fill perceived voids, leading us to invent things that don't have a basis in the natural flow of events.
The point is that humans try to define the world based on their own needs and perspectives, which ends up ignoring the actual state of things. For example, consider this: humans invented the measurement of time and act as if time flows according to those specific rules, whereas the theory of relativity—one of the great abstractions that rose above basic human experience—...
Nature is ultimately "human nature" (according to I. Kant & Karl Marx)
A person cannot know (or experience) any objective nature as it exists in itself, but only their own nature (as it is perceived through them).
Therefore, it isn't that "man is a product of nature," but rather that nature (humanity's version of it) is a product of man. Humans also continuously produce themselves through constant self-creation.
Everything a person perceives or creates is the fruit of their experience, whether direct or indirect, but always specifically *human* experience.
Albert Einstein didn't discover the theory of relativity; he created it.
It feels almost absurd to think it exists independently of humanity (perhaps only within a divine mind 😕)
It is a human theory, and it holds true for humans.
The fundamental starting point for any conscious being is always the same: I AM.
(One way to express this is "Cogito ergo sum").
That part is unquestionable, but the uncertainty lies in
HOW am I?
HOW MUCH am I?
WHY am I?
Since humans are social beings, we perceive ourselves as such; we simply cannot become human outside of a community or society.
Because of this, our insights and achievements are necessarily intersubjective (though that doesn't make them objective or absolute). Naturally, Einstein couldn't have developed his theory in isolation, ignoring the rest of humanity.
In a human life, everything is essentially "unnatural." We can only survive within culture and society. Other creatures (that we know of) can live in "nature"—even if that nature has been modified countless times by human hands—but we haven't encountered any other "unnatural" being like us.
rustymaker5 said:...supposedly there's some sort of "super Y chromosome" code found in mass shooters.
Are you kidding me? 👎
I’ve taken a vacation before, and I fully intend to take another one soon. It makes me wonder if death isn't just one long, continuous sabbatical from life. 😉
redwalker63 As specified by:
It feels like schools operate under this underlying dogma—this assumption that they already have life all figured out for us. If they’re teaching from such a narrow perspective, how could they ever expect students to truly find their own way?
That really hits on the core purpose of education: pushing students to walk our path rather than their own. My own. It’s all about finding those right paths to follow.
redwalker63 As said:It’s funny how people love to complain about how "spoiled" or rebellious today's youth have become—claiming they have no respect for life or their parents—when we've been hearing those exact same grievances since ancient times. It’s a cycle that seems to have been written down thousands of years ago.
I truly believe we’re headed for a collapse because the younger generation simply refuses to listen to their elders. I remember my own father trying to guide me through a tough career move back in the day, and if I had just listened, I would have avoided so much heartache. 😁
redwalker63 As I was saying:
If I had to choose between life and death, I’d say Consciousness would be the third option.
If we look at it that way, then death is simply the absence of consciousness.
I suppose we're really talking about self-awareness—that profound realization of the "I," or that sense of being a distinct individual from everything else.
In my experience, pinpointing self-awareness feels much more intuitive than trying to grasp the concept of consciousness itself.
How can one even begin to conceive of a world without consciousness, when it is quite literally everything there is?
We can debate the nature of consciousness or how much we can actually trust our own perceptions, but I refuse to argue whether it exists at all.
And how exactly do we leave our mark on future generations?
If we stick strictly to Western rationalism, there are really only two ways to look at this:
It’s fascinating how much our genetics shape us. I was reading about heredity the other day and couldn't help but think about how much of my own temperament I clearly inherited from my father.
The issue of education and socialization—essentially forced acculturation—is such a heavy topic. It’s that constant pressure on young people to follow a pre-set path and conform to traditional ways, rather than finding their own way.
How on earth can we use these two models together to truly capture the sheer genius of someone like Albert Einstein?
Even with just a cursory glance at the facts, it becomes clear that this simply isn't possible.
It seems most natural to me that he was born with that spark of genius already inside him. To my mind, having solid genes and a great education are just the lucky circumstances that allow that innate brilliance to actually flourish.
I tend to believe what geneticists say: we are essentially a blueprint of our parents—just imagine Albert being a carbon copy of his father. I truly feel that education is the only way we can actually take that next step forward to surpass them.
In our pursuit of immortality, we don't just pass on our DNA; we increasingly strive to mold our children into cultural and social mirrors of ourselves—a constant legacy. 😁Fortunately, that approach usually fails to yield any real results.
viviana said:.
Where does the fall actually happen?
Or rather, what is it that separates us from the whole—from the totality of life? 🙂
We find a fascinating answer in the CIA: Rational Knowledge:
They ate from the "tree of knowledge" and suddenly realized they were naked.
It makes me wonder how vital the modern American school system really is for raising children. While rational knowledge predates organized schooling by ages, today every child is subjected to this specific type of processing: a kind of programming for uniformity. It feels like they shave away any originality or creativity that doesn't fit within a set curriculum, essentially forcing kids to abandon their own perception of reality just to adopt the adult world.
But I don't want to go completely off on a tangent here.
Our core questions remain: What is life?
Can there be life without death?
And to what extent do we truly live on through our descendants?
viviana said:If you stop worrying about the afterlife, your whole perspective starts to open up.
It’s funny looking back—when I first grappled with the idea of death as a kid, everything felt incredibly straightforward to me:
Some people pass away, but I, obviously, am going to keep on living.
At the time, I never even stopped to wonder who or what this "I" actually was.
To my younger self, it was just a given: I am me. 😉
viviana said:Yesterday, I actually drafted a post for swiftcobra15 at least two or three times before deleting it all... 🙂 I kept wondering why—and of course, this is just me 🙂—why bother writing something when the true meaning feels out of reach? What stays on the screen just felt hollow. But... I decided to give it a shot anyway. 🙂
I have to call you out here: you're being far too self-critical.🙂
There are plenty of people who have nothing of substance to say yet never stop cluttering up their screens,
but you really raise the bar for quality, so it’s a shame you don't post more often.
viviana said:...just a boundary someone crossed on their life's journey, one that perhaps only those of us looking in from the outside can see. It's a label that defines a person, yet it doesn't hold the weight we tend to assign to it.
I wrote that opening to get people thinking about what the word "life" actually implies.
It carries so many contradictory meanings, yet most of us just breeze right past them.
viviana said:p.s. As for everything else, I think those who study philosophy will be able to write much more deeply and clearly than I can. 🙂 Still, I hope to keep writing and asking questions here... for now, that's all. Best regards. 🙂
I am truly glad you thought to visit this subforum again, and I look forward to seeing you around more often. 😉
Did life actually begin? And more importantly, WHEN and WHERE? 😕
If we assume it happened through gradual abiogenesis, drawing a hard line between non-living matter and living organisms becomes nearly impossible—unless we just decide to pick one arbitrarily.
On the other hand, if we lean toward creationist theories, we run straight into another hurdle: the assumption that a "Creator" must be a living entity. 😉
If we try to answer this by looking strictly through the lens of biology, we
quickly realize it only deals with living organisms rather than life as a whole concept.
Does life exist as a unified whole?
We can define any concept by examining its opposite:
Living things can die, whereas non-living matter cannot.
So, while biological life is mortal, is "Life" itself mortal?
In the phrase “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” it’s clear that the concept of Life transcends mere biology.
Perhaps the most fitting interpretation is: “I am true existence, as opposed to false existence (death).”
In a biological sense, an organism is mortal—it has an expiration date—yet it can reproduce, which allows it to partially overcome its own mortality.
No being is permanent. . . . But is Life itself permanent?
What does it actually mean to strive for immortality?
There are no static beings; everything changes, though living things evolve much faster than inanimate objects.
So, what would immortality even look like?
Is it the act of constantly changing while somehow maintaining one's identity?
Or, if we assume a being (the "I") possesses an unchanging core—viewing change merely as a play being performed before it—then the pursuit of immortality is simply the desire to eternally watch (perhaps always new?) performances.
Living beings cannot emerge or survive without the death of other living beings.
At first glance, autotrophs might seem to contradict this, but even they (as we see it today) rely on the cycle of death within their environment.
Taking that first step is undeniably crucial.
But more importantly, I have to ask myself if I am truly prepared—and capable—to take the second, the third, and so on...
Because you don't cover ten thousand miles with just one single stride,
but through countless small steps along the way.
Searching for the Truth and wisdom is essential, certainly. But if I find my version of "Truth" and simply stop there—
I’ll end up hardening into dogma and stalling my own spiritual growth.
You can live the Truth, but you cannot capture it in words or write it down.😉
Ahu Soph Nia said:I have to disagree; this is essentially about the nature of God.
It’s something atheists just can't seem to wrap their heads around.
That's an interesting take, and honestly, I find it quite amusing.
Any positive assertion regarding God is inherently—by definition—false.
That makes theology nothing more than a structured system of falsehoods.
...the immortal soul occasionally manifests in human form.
In my view, Buddhists are getting closest to the truth:
There is no such thing as an immortal soul, yet there remains a need for a "soul"
(an eon, a monad, etc.) to facilitate reincarnation.
...it gave people a reason to stop thinking; ...
I would argue instead that it provided people with plenty of material for contemplation
and, more importantly, for questioning and overcoming the deep-seated biases and delusions they were once trapped by.
Sitting Bull said:You can take those philosophies somewhere else. 😉
You’ve repeated yourself twice now, and then a third time there in the quote. 👎
This isn't even about philosophy; it's just poor (if good even exists 😕) theology
Since Christian theology is the most widespread here in the States, I should point out that the Bible doesn't actually separate the body from the soul—they are one and the same. It was only through later, popularized interpretations (by people who clearly missed the point) that this "holy trinity" of spirit-soul-body emerged. That leads directly to that famous nonsense:
"Humans possess an immortal soul."😁
As Albert Einstein once said: Only stupidity is infinite. 😉
It’s a beautiful illustration of what sacrifice actually means:
The "King" sacrifices himself, shedding his human persona to embrace his TRUE (frog-like) nature.
Essentially, he gives up the illusion—the false identity—to attain the truth of who he really is.
Of course, most people would much rather cling to a lie than face the truth.
I’m looking forward to seeing your thoughts, specifically regarding this concept of sacrifice. 😉
velvetwolf92 said:👎 Honestly, it was just kind of dull. The book is way better, and I have to admit, trying to cram all that material into one movie was a massive undertaking...
mistyfox812 said:If you listen to the Logos rather than me, it’s wise to admit that all is one. (50)
Donkeys would much rather choose straw over gold. (9)
William Gonzalez3 said:
55:45 said:So, it isn’t just that animals possess consciousness—they have self-awareness too. In fact, I truly believe there isn't a single living creature out there that lacks its own distinct character.
Essence said:Why do the pious end up behind bars?
I suppose they just enjoy contemplating God in the silence of a prison cell. 🤣
What a question, though the answer is actually quite straightforward. It’s all part of God's will, plain and simple. I truly believe God knows His flock best, and He tends to be especially demanding of those who claim to follow Him. Some believers worry that God might be too harsh, fearing divine judgment in heaven if they live in sin—but sometimes, that deserved justice arrives a little early, right here on Earth. Everyone gets what they deserve.
As for non-believers, God is a bit more lenient; after all, they never made a formal commitment to follow His laws.😬
.
