Rational Discourse

There is true expression on panel. But only one pixel is defective. Which one?


register to answer

more puzzles

This  is experimental direction in a science and the literature through merge of poetry and a science (philosophy). This direction did not exist till now in the pure state. Earlier there was a direction in poetry? Philosophical poetry (Empedocl, V. Solovyov, M.Voloshin, I.Brodsky, O.Khajyam, etc.), but did not exist directions in a science of philosophy in rhyfm philosophical gamble. One of representatives of German classical philosophy F.Schelling, named a similar direction didactic poetry.

 

Will

 

The will is authority above itself,

the authority is will above others.

The will recovers a direction,

and doing the world destiny,

freedom of destiny in the world-

the will inspires in a pressure.

The duty as the center of will -  Good Honour,

freedom as the center of a duty – The good Gospel’s message.

The reason is a duty a measure,

a belief is a freedom’s share,

outside of reason will -belief,

but in reason belief - will.

 

 

 

Time

 

Time is something an average  between

that the friend the friend is pregnant:

movement and an idea.

The first the last the clothes called time,

dresses in sense.

Temporariness inside of sense - moves,

immovable in sense - It is thought.

I also do the conclusion

that time is think of a seed:

outside of an idea time - movement,

but in an idea movement - time.

 

 

Is anybody out there? I found this community be doing research for my Philosophy and Lit class. I invited the class to join too because I think it would be beneficial to have some discussion outside of the class.

There's a question in computer programming:
Can a program ever be aware of itself?
The general answer to this question is no.
How do we know that we are not someone else's program?
How do we know we are real?
Humans over rate themselves. In reality we are but nothing. I'd love to find out we were part of something bigger.

The following headline came from the chauvinist french newspaper headline " Le monde ". We'll fuck the french...there has been no country in the world that has been more of a friend to a nation than the United States has been to france. <--- for more fuckfrance.net...but this not my gripe since i like french food.

What seems to be happening to America, being the last superpower, is that we are continuously willing to go it alone (remember "your with us or against us) is that we are flexing out muscles in response to world terrrorism and our global agenda and not getting much support. What we get is newspaper headlines like this, but if I remember correctly it was the nations of europe that begged us ( france and germany especially) to get involved in the Balkans during Serbia murderous days of ethnic cleansing in bosnia-herzovogina...where our military support especially from the carriers in 5th fleet as well as US 20,000 troops help bring and end to the genocide of muslims...no good deed goes unoticed huh?

To top it off, it was reported in todays new york times, that Austrailian politicans are now in the battle in thier court of public opinion for thier careers due to the latest blast killing 200 aussies in Bali.

Well are we willing to go it alone or not, everyone hates us as it is. The muslim world isnt getting any kinder to us, and they wont to our Allies, because ..."either your with us or against us"...while have put our allies in hard position, what if the united states never got involved in europe in WW II...would we have to awnser to the U.S. constitution or Herr Ashcroft?

We're witnessing the acid of postmodernism, existentialism, and anti-foundationalism eat away and dissolve the assumptions of our religions and institutions, and we wonder why it's happening. I'll tell you why. Those religions, those institutions, are no longer relevant.

I'm no progressive optimist. I don't assume that this ideological evolution is somehow "better" than the last arbitrary set of assumptions. I merely state the fact that our institutions are presently at odds with our intuition, and we cannot rest until these differences are reconciled. To paraphrase Saul Williams, we must make our souls rhyme with our minds.

I think part of the flaw of philosophy is that it is a search for the "meaning of life". The "meaning of life" is just a construct. Just because we can name something does not mean that it exists.

I propose that a more meaningful inquiry would be into the "point of living". Why live? Why do anything? This is a question that we can actually examine without throwing a lot of epistemological and metaphysical feces around.

So, I put on the mask of the rationalist paradigm to provide an answer.

The point of living is to exercise options.

The nature of life is that we have choices. I will call these choices options to make clear the parallel between life and utility calculations. I do not want to make this sound cold, so I'll first explain that utility calculations are not a matter of measuring the net-happiness of life (as if such a thing were possible). They are just a way of representing human decisions as decisions of value. After all, isn't that what we humans do? -- make value judgments to determine our decisions?

There is a nice little mathematical theorem that explains why options are never worth less than nothing. Yes, this is trivial: It is always in to your advantage to be able to choose between X and nothing than to only have just nothing to look forward to. Even if X is worth less than nothing in the status quo, the volatility of value (or utility calculations) provides that X might at some point be worth more than nothing.

It is easy to view the sum of options that a person has as having extraordinary value, though I don't mean to go that far with this argument. But on the most basic level, options are the reason for living, the "point of life".

This question makes the tacit assumption that when something exists, it must exist objectively. While I personally disbelieve the existence of a subject/object boundary, I can see why language elicits such questions. For example, languages must be learned, and hence obviously exists independent upon our perception. However, language is also defined by usage, hence its subjective nature.

Linguists will argue that there is no such thing as "proper English" due to any language's divergent and usage-dependent nature. A computer's "language" is a set of symbolic syntax in which the combination of small bits of information yield even greater amounts of information when the order itself is processed. Such "languages" are objective and universal (changes occur discretely in version numbers). Human language is similar, but new, slightly different versions are created with each speaker, and uniformity is heavily dependent upon human-human interaction.

(Consider Papua New Guinea, perhaps the most geologically diverse region on Earth. A good day's hike by experienced explorers yields only 3 miles. Most New Guineans have never been more than 10 miles from home in their lifetimes. Of the 6000 languages on Earth, Papua New Guinea is home to 1000 of them.)

Of course, if you want to go the more philosophical route, one may wonder if intangible information like language really exists objectively. I'm in the camp of most analytical philosophers in that simple (atomic) facts yield more complex information via their interactions. For example, the position of two objects is a simple fact, and the distance between the two is a complex one. Take this to the extreme, and you have the existence of extremely complex entities such as language.

Lastly, the role of language is to give a picture of reality, factual or not. Ideally, sentences could boil down to mathematical statements. Unfortunately, the actual usage of language runs more along the lines of "word games" in which ideas are inferred by creative juxtopositions of words (see: Wittgenstein's Philosophical Inquiries). Therefore the logic represented by "language math" can be true, false, paradoxical, contradictory, or nonsense. Most philosophical problems arise from the misuse of language.

I suppose that language acts as a mediator between reality and ideas, the subject and the object. A direct brain-to-brain connection would relay only ideas/feelings, whereas a rigorous mathematical language would be like a computer's language, relaying only previously defined consistent truths.