Reality. Answer the question.

Don't bother throwing big names... I never read anything of Nietzche or any other thinker of the past. I form my own reasoning solely from myself and my interaction with this world... My basic idea about this world is that we need to be able to rely on ourselves for everything. Neither the past, nor gods, nor the future can help us in the present: We need to do it ALL by ourselves. But that put aside...

I try to present similar situations to lines of reasoning that I find illogical in an attemt to either:
- Make a person see the flawed reasoning (if it is indeed flawed)
- Make a person better explain their reasoning (so I understand why it is not flawed)
If D is not what you desired aim is... Then explain why B is not equal to C, to refer to your reasoning in your quote.

And yes, philosophers argue a lot, and it does tend to go on. That's what they tend to call PHILOSOPHY and it's what this subforum is about. Philosophy is about transferring ideas, concepts, perspectives. Perspectives I try to interpret, whereas you simply reject mine, without seemingly considering them. If this is what you do, what is the point in philosophy? If you do not want to understand, but merely voice your own points of view, use a unidirectional form of communication.
Abstract thought and narrowmindedness are seperate concepts, they are not mutually exclusive. One deals with grasping concepts that cannot or do not exist in the real world (or what we percieve as such), the other deals with being able to comprehend and understand ideas that conflict with previous understanding. You may believe all you wish in a certain abstract concept of the workings of this world and your perception of it... If you cannot understand other such concepts you will not be able to fully comprehend other people.

Your last statement intrigues me though: "The object is nothing but the subjects". Please do elaborate.

so you argue philosophically without even having one clue about philosophy eh? thatz good.....kinda like someone saying, i'm no doctor but i can remove that bullet from your stomach..........all you're doing is belittling philosophy, philosophers, and me......go study some philosophy......if you've never encountered it before, then you truly are in the dark about philosophy.....

okay, considering your opinions.....i do, and have, otherwise there wouldn't be 13 pages of me saying blah, blah, blah....but you and guy both get so aggitated that i won't accept your logic.....i believe in this philosophy, i love it, study it, adhere to it, and i know the way to construe the arguments......if you feel that i am being too stubborn, then that is actually a good thing.......i'm aiming for point A, you point Z, everything in between i will argue as hardcore as possible to further reinforce A.......or at least the A side......i believe in existentialism in its philosophy, but not in its meaning.......yes, i think to kill the self (not the physical act of suicide, but a suicide of the inner-essence) is a far worse evil than any other type; but does that mean that i will go out and kill people because i dream it? no.....of course not, i am a person who abides by rules and societies, etc.....but itz all shit.....and i believe this......but i will not live by it per se.....i dunno......itz funny, but every philosophy proff i ever had all said that we're truly insane, anyone who devotes their life to philosophy is truly a no-man man........i dunno, itz weird.....hard to explain......i'm probably contradicting myself left and right, but i don't really no how to explain it........

the object is that which matters, but how does one explain the objective without introducing some notions of the subjects?

but seriously, read some of the modern-philosophy.......and to claim the past can't help the present seems ridiculous to me......we live in the past.......memories, civilizations, art, etc.......

alright......i really like your question.....does the separation of good and evil contradict reality......i would say no......i mean, both do exists, or at least the notion of it exists......but aestheticism would say yes, this is bad and that is good, but all is beautiful.........how can it not be? if everything that can exist does exists, then surely it must and should exist......why should we diminish somethings importance or existence simply based on itz notion of being good, or evil........this is nothing but a form of a bias; justified, but still bias

so no, i don't think the seperation contradicts reality.....i would say it only further reinforces it......but that doesn't mean that reality is bias.......knowledge is bias......belief is bias.....reality is the rocks, the trees, humanity, planets, the physical and the metaphysical......

All right, how does it contradict aestheticism, something can be good and beautiful, can't it? And depending on your definition, couldn't something be evil and beautiful as well?

Now, show me how the metaphysical exists outside of ideas and biases.

yes.......you are correct

and i don't quite follow....i mean, ideas are somewhat metaphysical........but i think i get what you're getting at......if metaphysical is bias, then aestheticism fails? there truly is a separation of good and evil?

no, I'm just asking you to show me a concrete and pragmatic way in which the metaphysical world exists outside of ideas.

gah!!!!!!!! damn...........good show......but, i don't suppose Aquinas or theoretical perspectives pertaining to the universe or evidence of the paranormal means anything to you?

theoretical? yes, of course, but theories are only ideas, still not showing how metaphysics has anything to do with pragmatic non-ideal life, though.

and remember, metaphysics has very little to do with the study of the paranormal. metaphysics is the study of being qua being. being as is.

as you like to call it, the big picture. existence, the man behind the curtain. in studying religion, my very favorite professor said to me that one of the world's most acclaimed atheists said, god(s) may exist, little gods, paranormal gods, but that's not what's of interest. what's of interest is GOD. what's of interest is the man behind the curtain.

okay.....i dig......but you at least accept, maybe, questionably-so, the theory of the metaphysical? or rather a theory?

okay, i kinda got the idea of pramatism......but you could you explain what you mean with the pragmatic non-ideal life.........i don't really know pragmatic philosophy

I believe in a metaphysical world. I believe in God, I believe in transcendental ultimate reality. But it's none of my concern. I believe in it to the degree that the belief functions and has shown itself to be true. What concerns me, as a pragmatist, is how to live. I want to know how to live. God is too awesome and ultimate, time spent trying to make serious and breakthrough conclusions about the nature of God is time wasted.

but don't you feel like you might be abondoning your god concerning yourself with pragmatic decisions?

you do realize that the two of you are just going in circles, yes?

rogue--look closer and you'll see that we're not.

sixx--what do you mean?

yeah, i think we're getting somewhere

well, i don't know about "pragmatism" but pragmatic means abondoning theories and just like accepting what work?

To quote some dict. "a straightforward practical was of thinking about things or dealing with problems, concerned with results rather than the theories and principles.

from that, i kinda suspect that this is an abondonment of god, religion really, and philosophy per se.......but with god and whatnot, it seems to me that the straightforward practicial way of life is to live by scientific laws already set in stone......not scientific theories, but certain scientific rules we already regard as true......such evolution, gravity, suns weight, etc.....

but you get me? i dunno, i could be totally wrong....i never read on pragmatism

An abandoning of God is impossible. Nothing you can do or say or wish will take God out of your life.

And it's not an abandoning of philosophy, it's an embracing of it. What gets abandoned is all the things that can't help us know how to live.

I don't speak for all pragmatists, but speaking as one, what concerns me about philosophy are the things that directly involve me, my ambitions and my loved ones.

oh come on...i don't buy this.....for many, many reasons:

A
becareful with term God, this "G" signifies a chrisitian or catholic like diety; the term god, this "g" signifies a diety of somekind...such as gods, or goddesses

*a-1: important to note that the term god, God, gods, and goddesses all signify the existence of a creator; oftentimes, this creator is shows to have "sentient-thought"....especially God

B
taking god out of "my" life versus taking god out of life...okay, i think it is important to note that some people do not believe in any diety whatsover, or any metaphysical like entity as well, but there is a tricky way to abondon God, or gods, etc. without denying the existence of this ultra-essence-metaphysical realm

Okay, i'm gonna pause right here and just proclaim that philosophy of religion and the existence of god and the philosophy of evil is one of my main loves in philosophy....

Proving God: watch maker theory, complicated designs aren't natural
Counterargument: maybe maker, maybe not (as science argues); but regardless, does this designer know what its doing, or does it just do?

Proving God: there has to have been a beginning theory
Counterargument: infinity
Counterargument: if this "god" began the beginning, then it would be possible to discern, through the reasoning and understanding of the concept of time, that there would have been a "split-second" where this "god" set in motion, or a change, into what has become the beginning.....also, not too mention the all too obvious, where did this "god" come from?

Proving God: the metaphysical theory.....I, which is a thing that exists (and i don't want to get into existence, reitterating cogito ergo sum and etc....but lets all agree that we exist....in some manner or form) understand that there are things such as unicorns, which don't physically exist, but exist in imagination...God then must also exist, cuz i can imagine it....to some degree or another, you have a notion of God (the christian-ish diety as well as diety in general).....thus, God exits.....and as we are primarily rulers of the physical world, with slight metaphysical properties (such as the capacity to dream), whatz to say God isn't the ruler of the metaphysical world with slight physical properties
Counterargument: there is a wonderful fucking argument to this by Kieerkiengard, or whoever...i remember studying it, and it was fucking out there, but it was fucking hardcore...i don't have my books with me, so i'm afraid i can't reiterate the argument......but case in point, this (i will admit) is a damn good way to prove God, gods, etc. existences.....y'know me....the dualist

The Problem of Evil: this is quite single handly the biggest argument against God's existence, and the most damaging...even St. Augustine and St. Aquinas (though not directly) had issues with God's existence and thought more along god lines......when we say God, the christian-ish diety, we think of the all powerful, all great and all good perfect being.

1) All Powerful: that which is all powerful would have absolute controll. Hear that, absolute controll. That which is all powerful does it all. It is absolute supreme ruler that is, in a sense, all that matters as it is all that is. Absolute.

2) All Good/Perfect: Supremely good and perfect pushes away from any existence of evil. Perfect and good is the exact opposite of evil, and thus does not want anything to do with, nor has anything to do with, evil in any manner shape or form.

...And yet, Evil exists......how?


i think i'll pause there for a moment.....but i'm just building up an argument

That's all well and nice, but western philosophy's failure to wrap its mind around something that, Hindus for instance, grasp quite easily is not a sign that it's wrong.

Vishishtadvaita: Sanskrit for "Qualified non-Dualism." All things are of God, but not all things are of God's essence.

And just where is it written that a totally good God would do away with all evil? We may make that assumption, but what the hell do we know about the goings-on over the course of millions or billions of lifetimes when we live only one? God, as I understand Him, is awesome in power, but gentle in practice, being a God of peace. When She tells us to love our enemy, why would God not do the same?