Philosophical Questions

[Sander]

Sophistry is a type of philosophy, you know.

Not in the contemporary meaning of the word, you know.

Oi! Catch up on your classical politics. I allude not to the triumvir Lepidus, but the CONSUL Lepidus, who founded one of the greatest and most used roads in Italy (in fact, modern Italians still use the road that mid 100's BC Lepidus founded during his rule). Also, I would like to say that rather, I choose Lepidus for its Latin meaning, "clever" -along with twelve other meanings I do not wish to bring up for time's sake-.

Anyhow, I just wanted to clear some things up with my questions on Socratean philosophy and technology, respectively.

When Socrates declared his ignorance of the true workings of the world with the quote I brought up, he meant that there was no way of proving -or disproving, for that matter- that our senses don't decieve us and that everything we perceive is not a fabrication of our minds, which I was hoping would be discussed.

On technology, I meant technology such as automated projectile weaponry and nuclear atomics.

Still missing the point.
Your questions are old, uninteresting and not particularly insightful.
There's very little interesting to discuss about these points, moreover you present them without any context or commentary of your own, making you come off rather like a pretentious prick.

 

[Lepidus]

By asking these questions, I thought it was assumed that I knew what I was talking about and therefore had already formulated an opinion on the matter. You claimed that my questions were uninsightful and dull, complaining that I offered no context or commentary to accompany my accusations, without bothering to fully explain what you meant. I myself believe in free thought. If one were to mold their questions into to deffinate a shape using context, then there would be too little room for argument and reason in an answear. Also know that a question is like a fertile grassland. Sure one can build a farm, but the land could be so much... more. A question isn't always 'yes' or 'no', and is ALWAYS in the eye of the beholder. No, I offer no context, for I refuse to spoonfeed.

Also, you say that I should offer commentary of my own to supplement the questions. Why? Then people would hear my argument, and many would sycophantically say 'yes' like Socrates' straw-men in The Republic. By offering commentary of my own, I would destroy my own plans and create followers in lieu of thinkers. Only dictators and evil men demand followers.

One last point. Webster's Online Dictionary defines 'philosophy' as

1 a (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a> (3): the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1)archaic : physical science (2): ethics c: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a: a system of philosophical concepts b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the>
4 a: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b: calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

. Since Sophism is the search of and path to the attainment of success through any means necessary, it fits at least one of the shown dictionary deffinitions. Also, Philosophy and Sophism share the Greek 'sophos', or wisdom.

 

[Moving Target]

Whoa-whoa-whoa.

How would we know that you know what you're talking about? It's the INTERNET, chock-a-block full of pretentious twits with lots of opinions, some of whom start threads just like this to... I don't know... feel smart, or something. Anyway, just because you've got the handle of a Roman statesman doesn't mean that we'll suddenly assume that you've got the chops to be explaining to us what X or Y is all about.

I also totally agree with Patton89 re: senses and illusion. It's a pointless question, on the same order of asking whether we're really all puppets of some being not understandable or more powerful than we humans. If it's true, we don't know already, and there's not a single thing we can do about it; we should live our lives according to what we think the best way is to live (as humans have done for millennia) and not worry about it. If it's not true... same result. We still wouldn't know.

 

[fireb0rn]

We cant ponder,or think about it as it could be false, fabricated by our own mind, as if it is capable creating a world, it is deceit inside ones mind, and even thinking is impossible,as the awnsers could be just as false as the world we observe.

Even so, our knowledge of the material world is likely probable (if that means anything), because it is inconceivable as to how it could be a delusion. But your conclusion here that "thinking is impossible because the answers could be false" does not logically follow from anything. First of all, you say that thinking is impossible, then follow up by saying that thinking may or may not be impossible.

Anyways, assuming our senses do deceive us, that doesn't take away from our capability to know anything. It's obvious that our senses deceive us sometimes (stick in the water, optical illusions). In these cases we can explain why this deception occurs either scientifically or mathematically and therefore know the truth of the situation (the stick does not really bend in the water). But, since we know it is possible that our senses can deceive us, we know that it is also possible that our senses can deceive us and we might not have an explanation for said deception. All knowledge from our senses is doubtable, then, but probably true. You can't deny this, even by calling it a trick.

It is wrong to say that we cannot know anything because of this. It is necessary for us to exist in order to be deceived; and since we can have this knowledge, knowledge must be possible, too.

It is unsolvable. Anything you think, can be false, anything you see can be false. We could waste centuries debating and discussing, and we wouldnt make any progress.

It's not necessarily unsolvable as far as I know. Anything you think must be true or false, necessarily. Anything you see may or may not be false as far as I know. Centuries may or may not be wasted, depending again on whether it is solvable or unsolvable; and whether or not it is solved within a decade or two. Progress, though, has nothing to do with this, since the people concerned only with doubtable things will never begin to question whether their progress has any importance in the first place. It's not like the masses will throw down their tools and begin to philosophize, suddenly.

 

[Sander]

By asking these questions, I thought it was assumed that I knew what I was talking about and therefore had already formulated an opinion on the matter. You claimed that my questions were uninsightful and dull, complaining that I offered no context or commentary to accompany my accusations, without bothering to fully explain what you meant. I myself believe in free thought. If one were to mold their questions into to deffinate a shape using context, then there would be too little room for argument and reason in an answear. Also know that a question is like a fertile grassland. Sure one can build a farm, but the land could be so much... more. A question isn't always 'yes' or 'no', and is ALWAYS in the eye of the beholder. No, I offer no context, for I refuse to spoonfeed.

Missing the point.
All you do is open a random thread, post 5 (completely uninteresting) questions and tell people 'Hey go answer them!'
That's not interesting, nor is it particularly philosophical (philosophical treatises do not consist of just a page of random question).

Also, you say that I should offer commentary of my own to supplement the questions. Why? Then people would hear my argument, and many would sycophantically say 'yes' like Socrates' straw-men in The Republic. By offering commentary of my own, I would destroy my own plans and create followers in lieu of thinkers. Only dictators and evil men demand followers.

...
Are you serious?
These questions are grade-school level, additionally they aren't hard and people can think of answers themselves. Offering your own opinion on the matter doesn't create yes-men or followers, it merely shows that you put in some effort, as well as creating context and giving your thread more of a point.

One last point. Webster's Online Dictionary defines 'philosophy' as

1 a (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a> (3): the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1)archaic : physical science (2): ethics c: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a: a system of philosophical concepts b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the>
4 a: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b: calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

. Since Sophism is the search of and path to the attainment of success through any means necessary, it fits at least one of the shown dictionary deffinitions. Also, Philosophy and Sophism share the Greek 'sophos', or wisdom.

Did you just look up philosophy to try to point out to me what the meaning of sophistry is?
Maybe you should go look up sophistry and see that you are wrong about its contemporary meaning, smartass.

Also, with every post you sound more like a typical, pretentious 18-year-old who just came across a philosophy textbook.