Post by 74Rk4 on Sept 1, 2016 4:08:11 GMT -6
You look at all of this very pragmatic Makes it hard to tie you down to something.
What I wanted to explore here, is the question: if the bodily presence matters for the identity of (in this case a person – which is always much more complicated) a thing.
Maybe the example wasn't that good, but they have practically the same body, though they made fundamentally different decisions.
One could argue, that the essence of their identity (in this case) – the thing which is required to make them what they are, is not material.
Which would lend itself to a idealistic standpoint of ontology.
You are right there. I thought about it a bit. Philosophy can get pretty boring, I assume.
It's mostly reading stuff from dead guys and argue about it. On your own and on a piece of paper of course.
If there is an actual debate in class (it's hard most of the time, because of the number of students), I found that it usually tends towards name dropping.
Some one says something and the next person just recaps the statement of philosopher A towards that argument.
Then of course the next person comes with long dead philosophers XYZ's counter to that.
From there it is often just a clusterfuck of “look, I read a book” and no one tries to think on there own anymore.
Which of course is hard, because almost everything has been said about fundamental philosophical problems.
At least that's always my point of view.
I also have to admit, that I use these conversations, to overcome my compulsion to express myself as good as humanly possible.
Writing in a different language forces me to often put things simpler and not as honed, as I would want to.
Someone once said that; a good philosopher doesn't put simple things in complicated words, but complicated things in simple words (something along those lines).
What I wanted to explore here, is the question: if the bodily presence matters for the identity of (in this case a person – which is always much more complicated) a thing.
Maybe the example wasn't that good, but they have practically the same body, though they made fundamentally different decisions.
One could argue, that the essence of their identity (in this case) – the thing which is required to make them what they are, is not material.
Which would lend itself to a idealistic standpoint of ontology.
I took one philosophy class and read a bunch of Philosophy in Pop Culture books, so I'm a novice in the subject. It's interesting, but at the same time it often goes so far into the theoretical that it stops being practical and just seems like something for bored people to do to pass the time XD
It's mostly reading stuff from dead guys and argue about it. On your own and on a piece of paper of course.
If there is an actual debate in class (it's hard most of the time, because of the number of students), I found that it usually tends towards name dropping.
Some one says something and the next person just recaps the statement of philosopher A towards that argument.
Then of course the next person comes with long dead philosophers XYZ's counter to that.
From there it is often just a clusterfuck of “look, I read a book” and no one tries to think on there own anymore.
Which of course is hard, because almost everything has been said about fundamental philosophical problems.
At least that's always my point of view.
I also have to admit, that I use these conversations, to overcome my compulsion to express myself as good as humanly possible.
Writing in a different language forces me to often put things simpler and not as honed, as I would want to.
Someone once said that; a good philosopher doesn't put simple things in complicated words, but complicated things in simple words (something along those lines).