Eric Newman75 Asks: A LeibnizLook, it isn't like he was just copying everything from the Greeks he mentioned. Far from it—he certainly didn't have all the answers, nor did he explain everything perfectly. Science back then was lightyears, maybe thousands of times less developed than what we have now. The reality is that a modern person simply can't know everything; our only real option is to specialize. We've moved so far into such extreme breadth and depth that it's overwhelming. Honestly, you’d need several lifetimes just to truly master a single field. Even something like mathematics would be an impossible feat.
Leibniz definitely deserves his own dedicated thread. One day, once I’ve managed to get my head around the complexities, I hope to finally open one up—God willing.
To kick things off, I think it’s only fair to mention that people call Leibniz "the last man who knew everything" for a very good reason. 😲
Here are a few arguments to support that point:
The American philosopher Francis Bowen makes a bold and rather surprising claim:
"Aside from Aristotle, I honestly think Leibniz was the greatest. The most comprehensive genius to ever walk this earth.. '' 😲
4. To be honest, I’m struggling to decide which other thinker made such an invaluable contribution across so many vital fields. It's a tough call. The ways in which the human spirit manifests itself...
Mathematics, logic, philosophy, and science.
5. Even if he hadn't accomplished a single other thing in his entire life besides sharing the glory of inventing calculus with Newton, he would still be immortal. Come on now, let’s be real—it’s Leibniz’s method, not Newton’s, that actually stuck around and remains the standard we use today. 😉
Why "startling"? Well, if you're looking at sheer breadth of knowledge, I guess you could argue it. Still, The Stagirite feels more cohesive to me. No matter what you pick up—his Nicomachean Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric, Poetics—it all traces back to those principles laid out in his Metaphysics. Every single work reflects the whole system. Purpose, motion, the golden mean, matter, form, entelechy (from his De Anima writings); it’s all interconnected. Every facet of human action is structured to fit perfectly into the framework. And it all follows a strict logic.
Sure, there’s some nonsense in there—mainly when it comes to scientific accuracy—but you can forgive him for that. Even so, he’s incredibly persuasive.
I’ll clear this up, no problem. I’m talking about ontology here. That isn't really my main focus. If we’re going to sit around debating philosophers and philosophy, shouldn't we be looking at epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics too? There are massive holes in the logic. Take the whole "evil in the best of all possible worlds" debate, for instance. There is so much left hanging.
Look, being versatile is great and all, but his actual breakthroughs in math and physics—stuff that is truly original and changed everything—place him more in the camp of a scientist than a philosopher. When it comes to metaphysics, he’s essentially just picking up where the Greeks and Brun left off. That’s fine, don't get me wrong, but it would be pretty arrogant to claim he had figured out everything there is to know. That’s my issue. 😁
Eric Newman75 Asks: A LeibnizLook, it isn't like he was just copying everything from the Greeks he mentioned. Far from it—he certainly didn't have all the answers, nor did he explain everything perfectly. Science back then was lightyears, maybe thousands of times less developed than what we have now. The reality is that a modern person simply can't know everything; our only real option is to specialize. We've moved so far into such extreme breadth and depth that it's overwhelming. Honestly, you’d need several lifetimes just to truly master a single field. Even something like mathematics would be an impossible feat.
Leibniz definitely deserves his own dedicated thread. One day, once I’ve managed to get my head around the complexities, I hope to finally open one up—God willing.
To kick things off, I think it’s only fair to mention that people call Leibniz "the last man who knew everything" for a very good reason. 😲
Here are a few arguments to support that point:
The American philosopher Francis Bowen makes a bold and rather surprising claim:
"Aside from Aristotle, I honestly think Leibniz was the greatest. The most comprehensive genius to ever walk this earth.. '' 😲
4. To be honest, I’m struggling to decide which other thinker made such an invaluable contribution across so many vital fields. It's a tough call. The ways in which the human spirit manifests itself...
Mathematics, logic, philosophy, and science.
5. Even if he hadn't accomplished a single other thing in his entire life besides sharing the glory of inventing calculus with Newton, he would still be immortal. Come on now, let’s be real—it’s Leibniz’s method, not Newton’s, that actually stuck around and remains the standard we use today. 😉
Aha. So, this "indivisible unit" that some people call a number, others see as an idea, and still others view as an atom—which he famously calls a monad—just magically popped into his head out of nowhere?
If he was familiar with the atomists and Plato, there's no question about it. And if you throw Pythagoras and Euclid into that mix? I'd bet my life on it.
hiddenpuma75 said:I have nothing but respect for philosophy, but I believe there is something "stronger," something far more universal, and something undeniably accurate and verifiable. It is the queen—if not the king—of everything. In essence, it is 😲 God 🙏
The absolute foundation of all things is mathematics 🙏
Or, to put it bluntly.
Numbers possess a precision that words simply can't match.
0100001111000111111
In other words. Philosophy is, as Nietzsche suggested, merely a DESCRIPTION (a labeling) of the world rather than an explanation of it.
So, following the logic of Sherlock Holmes, once we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth:
MATHEMATICS IS THE EXPLANATION😲
Nothing else holds the answers to everything.😲
I’m actually putting together a discussion on this topic. I want to explore the evolving idea that this entire existence is essentially a programmed simulation—that it is fundamentally mathematical.😲
We should start the journey with Pythagoras, travel through the ideas of the last man who truly knew everything—Leibniz—and then see where else the path leads...
And Leibniz? You think he was just copying those Greek guys he mentioned? Not even close. And let’s be real—he didn't "know everything," nor did he explain everything. Science back then was a hundred, maybe a thousand times less developed than what we have now. The modern person simply isn't built to know everything anymore; we can only specialize. Things have expanded way too much in terms of both breadth and depth. You’d need several lifetimes just to truly master a single field. Even something like mathematics.
bluemason3 said:True, which is why they were mostly just talking nonsense, too. Their guesses—driven by poor epistemology—aren't any more accurate than anyone else's. They just happened to land somewhat near what we know today purely by luck, though they aren't even close to being truly correct.
Look, you can't really blame a philosopher when science is still playing catch-up to their intuition. I mean, what else could they realistically do? Build an electron microscope just to prove a molecular structure? The point is, if the idea is solid, it serves its purpose. If that spark of insight lights a fire under some scientist, then mission accomplished.
The Big Bang was just an idea once, too. Lemaître, Gamow, Alpher... they sketched out the model, and then Bohr, Hubble, and a whole crowd of others stepped up to provide the proof. Everyone chips in a little piece of the puzzle. In fields this complex, there’s no such thing as being 100% right from the jump.
bluemason3 said:Whatever they happen to be, if they aren't grounded in pure logic, they're just impressionistic ramblings and a waste of everyone's time.
Look, there’s zero proof that guys like Leucippus or Democritus actually relied solely on logic when they were breaking the world down into atoms. In epistemology, rationalism inherently involves intuition too. It’s the same story with their rivals, starting from Parmenides and moving forward. Most of their actual writings didn't survive, but we can usually tell from other historical sources whether they were actually onto something or just spinning their wheels.
feralranger said:That explanation is so logically sound and intuitively obvious that one might almost call it trivial, which perhaps justifies my tendency to wonder why some people aren't already aware of it, rather than feeling they need to 'discover' it anew.
I mean, sure, from where we're standing today, it seems obvious. Ferdinand de Saussure laid down the theoretical groundwork for structuralism relatively early on, but things didn't really hit high gear until after World War II. That's when members of the Prague School, specifically Nikolaj Trubeckoj and Roman Jakobson—who ended up snagging a chair at Harvard—really started fleshing out those concepts. Then you had Hjelmslev and the Copenhagen School, followed by all those semioticians over in the States, and so on. It took a massive amount of time for modern linguistics to truly gain momentum, and by extension, for the philosophy of language to catch up.
ruggedraven36 said:I don't see it that way at all. It just means that real philosophical problems can't be proven—but they aren't unspeakable either. They’re baked right into human nature. They'll always be relevant, regardless of Wittgenstein's "wise" advice to just shut up about them. At the end of the day, you have to philosophize if you want to be human.
That’s early Wittgenstein we’re talking about. Later Wittgenstein isn't looking at language as some rigid system of symbols; he sees it as an activity. He’s moved past the obsession with ideal language or metalanguage and is much more interested in everyday, common speech. By doing this, he shifts away from pure logic and moves toward "language games." Sentences aren't just meaningful or meaningless to him anymore (as they were in the Tractatus); instead, he categorizes them based on narrow and broad contexts, specific speaking situations, and the sheer variety of how words are actually used (Philosophical Investigations). It’s a massive leap. Whereas he previously viewed philosophical texts as nonsensical—sentences where we failed to assign meaning because we lacked a referent or a physical object in the world to anchor them—he now argues that the meaning of a word depends entirely on its specific use within a linguistic game. Russell wasn't happy about this at all; he dismissed this interpretation as mysticism, and honestly, he had a point. Up until then, Wittgenstein had been precise, analytical, and thorough, but suddenly he’s leaving everything shrouded in fog. Still, he essentially laid the groundwork for what we call the pragmatic theory of meaning today. Language is full of synonyms, homonyms, and polysemy. How we interpret a sentence like "Mountain mountain mountain" doesn't depend on a dry definition, but on the placement, the context, and who is doing the talking...
And honestly, that’s fine. Language is one of those things that sets us apart from the animal kingdom, isn't it? But if you're blind to the divine, how on earth are you supposed to describe the indescribable? What kind of terminology would you even reach for—metaphorical or literal? Both end up being imprecise in their own way. And let's be real: words often just fall short. I am who I am. But what does that actually mean? Take Hebrew, for example. It doesn't bother with complex verb tenses like we do; it just uses perfective and imperfective aspects. Usually, people use the perfective for the past and the imperfective for the future. "Usually," I should add, because context is everything. In the original text, you see the first-person imperfect twice and the third-person once. "Who I am" and "who He is." It captures everything: who was, who is, and who will be. How can you even begin to express the Absolute in English?
hiddenpuma75 said:He was absolutely right, and it’s actually quite fascinating—that very link you shared even mentions the quote that Sigmund used to question the authenticity of.
That being said, if we want to defend philosophy, we have to admit it works perfectly fine on the level of reason.
The real issue with philosophy is that there exists a realm "beyond" reason, and that’s exactly what Buddha tended to avoid discussing.
Not because he didn't have the answers, but rather because
a) the Truth simply cannot be captured by language, since words are merely shadows of the Truth itself.
b) overthinking things doesn't actually lead to a reduction in suffering; instead, it just leads to confusion and an endless loop of mental clutter.
c) every individual needs to realize—or rather, personally experience—that INEFFABLE TRUTH for themselves.🙂
And then you’ve got Wittgenstein. It’s those things you just can't put into clear words, which is why you really ought to just stay quiet about them.
Where does science end and philosophy take over? It’s not about one replacing the other; it's more like philosophy picking up the baton, stepping into those spaces where our eyes can't reach. Cosmology is a perfect example of this, though certainly not the only one. You have your experiments and hard evidence, your math and physics—they carry you right up to a specific edge. But once you hit that wall, it's logic and intuition that have to lead the way. And then, eventually, we try to loop back to things we can actually touch and measure just to see if we were right all along.
slyhawk10 said:I don't want to overstep by criticizing the moderators' hard work.
However, there is one issue bothering me—and it concerns other users here. I find myself spending quite a bit of time in the kokošinjac, where influencer culture seems to be the most frequent topic of conversation. Since I’m a fairly versatile person who has dabbled in all sorts of things throughout my life (though perhaps not as much as I’d like to claim), I tend to move in circles filled with colorful characters—something I've shared a few times before. Now, some users are demanding that I reveal exactly what I do for a living just because I've "experienced" so much. My only question is this: how guaranteed is my anonymity here?
I usually just ignore them because I am not the subject of discussion—this isn't a thread about me. It would be so easy for things to spiral into off-topic territory, especially since I can see that many people here are quite tech-savvy and capable of digging up anything on the internet; it makes me feel like my privacy might be at risk. Then, predictably, they complain when I don't engage. Most of these are relatively new users who might not fully grasp the rules—and frankly, I'm still figuring them out myself... It just bothers me that instead of sending a private message, they choose to publicly dissect me. I'm curious about other users too, yet I don't go around interrogating them.
So, what are my options? Should I report the posts? Or should I tell them publicly to back off and take it to my inbox?
Disclaimer: I haven't reported any posts yet, mainly because I'm not even sure if their behavior qualifies as a violation worth reporting.
Look, absolute anonymity doesn't exist. If you're worried about what someone might dig up on you online, then don't post on the internet. It's really that simple.
To be honest, there are clinical studies out there regarding beta-glucans as an adjuvant therapy—quite a few, actually (I’ve linked the first two I stumbled upon)—so maybe we shouldn't be flat-out forbidding oncology patients from taking them. Look, I agree with what was written, everything makes sense, but in certain specific cases, they probably offer some actual benefits. I've come across several mentions of them helping with bone marrow regeneration and easing up the immunosuppression triggered by radiation and chemo. And don't get me wrong, I'm not browsing sites filled with buzzwords like "detoxification" or "flushing toxins from your system"—honestly, I have a physical allergy to anything claiming to "boost immunity" or "balance levels" of some random chemical element. Ninety percent of the advice regarding that diet can be tossed straight into the trash as pure hokum and snake oil. Eat plenty of fresh fruits and veggies, stay away from processed foods and alcohol, and practice extreme moderation with everything else—that's pretty much the whole game. 🙂
Joseph Edwards4 said:Honestly, this is one of the better threads I've seen on any forum lately. It’s definitely in my Hall of Fame, though it hasn't quite overtaken that legendary thread about Bug's computer/helmet setup just yet.
This one? Please. I've seen better. Someone once asked if there was a program that could just build video games for you—you know, where you tell it what you want and it actually makes it.
Sarah King25 said:(...) On's also cooked up this wild theory in his head where he thinks if he goes through with the bronchoscopy, everything will just spiral downhill. So, I guess we have no choice but to respect his call, regardless of what we might want for him.
What shows up as a mass on an X-ray and what’s actually happening in the body aren't always a perfect match. You can have a bunch of tiny spots surrounding one large mass, and being too aggressive with surgery could end up spreading things around. It’s not some crazy way of thinking, honestly. That’s exactly why surgeons insist on opening someone up—they need to see the real situation with their own eyes. If they were 100% certain it was just one isolated thing, I’d say just go for the bronchoscopy and deal with whatever happens next. But at the end of the day, we're back to the fact that every patient has the right to call their own shots. I get where he's coming from, and I get you, but I’m siding with Angela Wright here. To me, it seems like the lesser of two evils compared to radiation and chemo, and it might actually help him.