den_wolf

You like entangling yourself in philosophica loops, don't you? ^^^^^^ the above process. reason for disagreement: And the fact that Case A and B are different doesn't mean that it would be OK for Case B to be used in proofs. Damn, philosophy needs something better than language, to ease communication.

No, no longer with us. Life goes on.

The book was originally written in German. Reading it in German would be the ideal thing to do. As a sidenote: a lot of people actually correct me on the "spake" in the title, it's actually the archaic version of "spoke."

I miss places and people, but not my childhood per se. I miss our old house, and I miss my parents. Other than that, I had an O.K childhood, nothing too exciting. I wouldn't want to go back to it just for the sake of being a kid again, but for the sake of seeing my parents. That said, my childhood was much more "fun" than my teenage years. But I don't think that's necessarily true for everyone. Teenage years were real hard for me, I was pretty aggressive, and if there's one thing that I regret, it'd be the fact that I talked to my parents the way I did (with anger, and so on).

Sasun, I disagree with your process, not necessarily with your conclusion.

I blame God. But that is also relative, since different cultures might not believe in God. O.K. O.K, I'm not usually this bad with my students. I'm just trying to lighten up the mood!!! Today's impression of the day: Moral values are relative, but that doesn't mean that there are no absolute truths.

Yes, I was using comparison until I realised we were different types of animals, and that our appetites were relative to our nature.

Damn, and I thought wolves ate too much. That's my impression of the day.

:blink: I disagree with your derivation, that's what I disagree with!!! That is what I am saying. I don't disagree with your philosophy. Your philosophy is yours, and you can use any assumptions you want. I am talking about universal philosophy, like the one Spinoza is trying to develop. No you did not mention any cultures, but the question of relativism comes into play when you want to prove something by assuming that the existence of God is a premise. A = A is accepted in all cultures, but the idea of God is not. Which is where these differ. :blink: Yeah, that's what I prefer being called, too.

LOL, no, I'm not a doormat.. And women can't tell anything. They want you to think they do. But trust me, they don't. I've known some women who said it, all women say it, it's the cliché of womanhood. Perhaps popular culture has to be blamed for it. My mom and dad used to argue about it the whole time. I guess I took my dad's side. He believed the same thing. That women didn't know when men were "too desparate."

I disagree. Fact 1. The earth was believed to be flat by many in the past. Fact 2. The earth has been discovered and proven to be round as of present. Does not imply that using "Fact" 1 is correct. And it being proven and developed into FACT 2 does not imply that if we did not know how to prove the flatness or roundness of the earth, that we can use one or the other as an assumption. Like I said, you can use it, but you cannot arrive at a universal philosophy by using an assumption like that, because once it doesn't hold true in one culture, it doesn't hold true at all, since p ^ false = false. Then we all go back to cultural relativism and who thinks what, and unless you have a proof that either one or the other is correct (by absolute TRUTH), then you cannot claim that your philosophy is universally true. Btw, you can call me Serge if it's shorter (or more convenient) for you to type.

I don't think so. I think women don't know what they want, and that is why end up with the *ssholes all the time (or most of the time, at least). I mean, I think I am an amalgamation of challenge, the ability to "control", and having an "edge," but I still don't get any women, or at least those that I do get are those with low self-esteem.

Well now, what do you mean by that? A lot of nice guys have the "just friends syndrome" (I don't know if you were referring to that or the opposite, sorry, lack of sleep again). Which is why not too many women (read "none") approach me. Because I don't want to scare them off, even if I do like them in a more than friends way. And usually they are "scared away" when I take a step towards being more than just friends, and then you see them starting to date an *sshole. Angel, I do get approached, but only by students. And I wouldn't want to be involved in a sexual harassment case right when I'm launching my career in the academic circle. So I'm pretty much like Tom Hanks in "Cast Away" when it comes to women... (hated that movie, by the way).

Yes, that is why I never get approached by women, like I'm some kind of a wolf...

I did. On page 3 of the thread. Put them all in the bus, go to the edge of the cliff, let the bus fall off, but before that happens, make sure you get out of it. Risky but rewarding if it takes place successfully. And if it doesn't, then that would be the end of that "country."

Oh, not at all. I am not one to judge. I am merely an observer. So do not mind my views.

Thanks for clarifying, Domino. Armen and the rest, I don't mean to be offtopic, and Domino, I dont' mean to be an *ss, but I will say this anyway: Are you implying that the Germans were stupid? Both countries wanted an "empire" in which only Turks/Turkish people and in Germany's case Germans and other Aryans would live and prosper. I don't see how you can claim that the Germans didn't need to "exterminate" the Jews in order to build a Germany. Anyhow. Thanks for clarifying.

One of these days, I will start an all-encompassing philosophy thread, so that all philosophy discussions can go in there. Let's see what would happen if I do that. Hopefully there will be enough interest on the part of members to post there. It seems like members of this forum have an immense fascination for being offtopic, and when the time comes for them to talk about the same thing in a relevant topic, they shy away. But yes, that book is a great one. Very interesting. Another good book is Jeffrey Olen's Applying Ethics. And maybe I should also start a thread for philosophical book listings.

Gevo, that would be Thomas Hobbes, I believe. I'm not sure if it's in Rachels' book, I didn't look through it, although in the table of contents, there is a chapter about it. Re: Psychological Egoism.

Sasun, have you read Thus Spake Zarathustra? It's brilliant. Hey, maybe we need a Nietzche (I know my spelling!! ) thread. I'm glad people are interested in Philosophy. So check out the Spinoza thread too, damnit. It's not that hard!

What isn't clear, Sasun? I am confused. I thought we were discussing, not asking each other questions. Don't feel obliged to reply if you're busy right now. It can wait. Although I'd love other members to try to get into this discussion too, but I suppose they are not interested, or Spinoza scared them off with his language. Discovery and proof are two different things, unless, of course, you are talking about satellite imagery of the earth, in which case, it would be proof. I am simply stating that a while back, they assumed that the earth was flat and made certain proofs about other things using that assumption. I am not comparing the flat earth theory to the round earth theory. I am comparing the situation of the flat earth theory with the assumption of the existence of God. Those who believed that the earth was flat believed in it and defended it as if they REALLY knew it was flat. Because they could not imagine otherwise. Because the church told them so. If you view the issue of God and his [/her/its?] existence from the perspective of someone who is not prejudiced about the existence of God in any way (I have received a Christian education, but I have transcended all that, to have an objective view of religion, belief, and spirituality), it's a whole different realm of questions and situations. It's true that one views something differently when one views it with the glasses of an insider. Those who believed the earth was flat believed in it TRULY. Their stubbornness was not due to their inability to admit that they might be wrong. I am simply saying that if there is as much chance that there would be a proof that God does not exist, as there was in the case of the flat earth theory, it would be pointless, illogical, and wrong to create and base an entire philosophy on that assumption. It would be like basing all of science on 1 = 1,000,000.

:lol: Garogh em haskanal, sev-mard jan!! That was funny!!!!!

Oh damn, I had a brain block. Sorry I missed the sarcasm. Damn!! Too much Spinoza UGH!! But sev-mard, you are aware that there are other Operating Systems out there, no? Unlike laws. Out-Microsoft, not Out-law!

Well, how was it proven to be round? You are contradicting yourself here. First you're saying that the root of all scientific proof is A = A and other such axioms, then you claim that the proof that the Earth is round can be used to prove other things. How can something based on "assumptions" (according to you), be used to prove something else? Oh, I am not asking questions. I am simply making observations. And if I put the question mark at the end of a sentence, it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm asking you directly. A lot of the time I ask rhetorical questions. I suppose I am doing what people call "loud-thinking."

I think you posted in the wrong thread. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Laws? Politicians? Microsoft?