Home » Discussion Forums » Freethinking Teens Community » Freethinkers Debate

Does anyone want to discuss philosophy?

Posted on: Wed, 2006-10-04 15:59
Adam Burnfin
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Does anyone want to discuss philosophy?

Does anyone want to discuss philosophy? By this, I guess I mean anything philosophical, but I really want to debate philosophic points or conjectures pointed out or made by past philosophers. No one seems to know about philosophers.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket
Technorati Tags:
‹ Greed something ›

Posted on: Wed, 2006-10-04 20:44 #1
cookieavalanche
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
That's a broad topic. Maybe

That's a broad topic. Maybe if you narrow it down?


Posted on: Wed, 2006-10-04 20:59 #2
Adam Burnfin
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
I literally mean any

I literally mean any philosophic deabte, ie. Free will vs. Determinism, Existance preceeding essense, vice versa, Tri-angle of God's fallacy etc. I really mean any debate or ideal thought up of my past philosophers. Kant, Kierkegaard, Des Carte, Nietzsche, Sartre, Hume, anyone.


Posted on: Thu, 2006-10-05 18:36 #3
cookieavalanche
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
All right, then talk about..

All right, then talk about.. existence preceeding essence.


Posted on: Thu, 2006-10-05 20:43 #4
Adam Burnfin
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
cookieavalanche wrote:All

cookieavalanche wrote:
All right, then talk about.. existence preceeding essence.

Do you know what that is? Or who proposed it?


Posted on: Fri, 2006-10-06 20:51 #5
AgnosticAtheist1
AgnosticAtheist1's picture
Posts: 488
Joined: 2006-09-05
User is offlineOffline
Isn't it existentialist? I

Isn't it existentialist? I don't like this type of philosophy because it's too categorical Smiling the whole referencing famous philosophers never caught on with me. It seems all too... religious. I prefer individual philosophy, and each issue being taken separately. But I know enough about some of these categories to hold at least a reasonable discussion. But as an atheist and a materialist, essence and existence... well you can guess my views there


Posted on: Fri, 2006-10-06 21:32 #6
Adam Burnfin
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
AgnosticAtheist1 wrote:Isn't

AgnosticAtheist1 wrote:
Isn't it existentialist? I don't like this type of philosophy because it's too categorical Smiling the whole referencing famous philosophers never caught on with me. It seems all too... religious. I prefer individual philosophy, and each issue being taken separately. But I know enough about some of these categories to hold at least a reasonable discussion. But as an atheist and a materialist, essence and existence... well you can guess my views there

Correct, it is Sartrean existentialsim, but existentialist theories are the thought of under the pretense that there is no correct religion (normally). There are some Christian existentialists, but Christian theories contradict most existentialist theories, and it is irrational to be a Christian existentialist. Sartre was very atheist, as was all his his particular theory. You say you prefer each topic to be taken separately, but that this type is too categorized. Those statements are contradictory. Because categorizing helps organize, which makes things more separate while grouping them, though that doesn't seem to make much sense.


Posted on: Mon, 2006-10-09 09:27 #7
AgnosticAtheist1
AgnosticAtheist1's picture
Posts: 488
Joined: 2006-09-05
User is offlineOffline
By Categorical, I meant

By Categorical, I meant taking categories as a whole, rather than looking at the individual issues.

I prefer things like hypotheticals, where you can isolate one vatiable and measure the change to the system.


Posted on: Thu, 2006-10-12 19:50 #8
Adam Burnfin
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
AgnosticAtheist1 wrote:By

AgnosticAtheist1 wrote:
By Categorical, I meant taking categories as a whole, rather than looking at the individual issues.

I prefer things like hypotheticals, where you can isolate one vatiable and measure the change to the system.


Wow. I am done.


Posted on: Thu, 2006-10-12 20:02 #9
Derevirn
Posts: 218
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Kirkegaard was an

Kierkegaard was an existentialist (though he didn't use that term), yet I agree that existentialism is pretty much incompatible with religion. I prefer Sartre's existentialism Smiling


Posted on: Thu, 2006-10-12 21:31 #10
Kian
Kian's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Woo! Philosophy talks! I'm a

Woo! Philosophy talks! I'm a philosophy minor.

Ya'll need to see the light that is Nietzsche when talking about existentialism. oo and Heidegger.

ooo! and Kafka. Hopelessness and absurdity right there.


Posted on: Thu, 2006-10-12 21:36 #11
Derevirn
Posts: 218
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Metamorphosis was one of the

Metamorphosis was one of the top existentialist (somewhat) writings...


Posted on: Thu, 2006-10-12 21:40 #12
Kian
Kian's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Indeed it is. Have you read

Indeed it is. Have you read it? I used to tell my little cousins stories about the monstrous vermin. I'd switch their names with the lines from the books and give them nightmares.

Quote:
Als Alexander Lalama eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem Bett zu einem ungeheueren Ungeziefer verwandelt.

(As Alexander Lalama woke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself in his bed, transformed into a monstrous insect.)


Posted on: Thu, 2006-10-12 21:52 #13
AgnosticAtheist1
AgnosticAtheist1's picture
Posts: 488
Joined: 2006-09-05
User is offlineOffline
as long as no friggin

as long as no friggin kierkegaard comes up...


Posted on: Wed, 2006-10-25 19:17 #14
Adam Burnfin
Posts: 78
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Derevirn wrote:Kierkegaard

Derevirn wrote:
Kierkegaard was an existentialist (though he didn't use that term), yet I agree that existentialism is pretty much incompatible with religion. I prefer Sartre's existentialism :)

Yea, I must say that Chrsitian existentialism is just about the dumbest goddam philosophy I have ever heard of. When you are a Christian, there is no need for further explanation, says the bible.

Kian-Are we forgeting Sartre? and Beauvoire? (Spelling?)

-Does anyone know anything about phenomonology?

I wanted to add that I don't really expect anyone to mention Sartre, he is extremely vague, and sort of un-definable...