I'll sum up morality in one word: Existentialism.

>.>



One cannot read philosophers.

(Half joking here, I'm not yoshing on you)

I said it was false? I was talking about what the philosophers said and what you said about the cycle of money. And I don't really care if I piss you off. Go post on WPYO if you want, I'm not here to please.

[]

Reminds me of most internet forums.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

I'm not seeing a whole lot about morality here. It looks more like a rather feeble attemt to define the idea of "Human".

Wiki isn't all knowing. Of course, you being as young as you are haven't had formal education with Existentialism. I rather like it. It's not feeble at all, but this is coming from a christian...so I'm not too surprised.

I wouldn't trust just one sources of information for philosophy. Especailly Existentialism.

The morality issues of Existentialism for an "Athiestic Existentialist" would be that God might or might not have made humans, and then he left. God didn't send out a moral code of issues...he never told anybody that raping is wrong, stealing is wrong, giving is right, helping is right, that human beings formed that on their own as a society.

Of course that Wiki report was written by a Christianic Existentialist, which has..different views.

Remeber that this is a pathetic attempt on telling you about Exitentialism, as there are a lot of different philosophers on the issue...lots of branches. And writing just one paragraph is very brief.

[edit] what Yoshi said basically.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Too bad those philosophers rarely, if ever, effect anyone. Also, you've got it backwards. Pouring your money into charities will never get you a dime. Pouring your money into business and then spending some of the excess of your earnings will get you a lot of money, and plenty of self-worth, along with a sustained income for the charity. Trust me, they want the latter much more than the former.[/QUOTE]


are you serious? philosophers have effected quite alot of people, for instance the structure of government was inspired by..philosophers, communism was created by...philosophers.

Science up until the renessiance... philosophers

this was simply an ignorant statement



I love how you're lecturing free about debate and you engage in "you're just wrong... no im right!" with me

1) yes, philosophy has to do with science, by defenition actually much of philosophy IS science

2) no it has not been proven, unless you think that your poor example of the baby and the diper was proof.

you said that the baby doesnt NEED the diper to be changed but wants it anyway, but this doesn't necessairly show greed, if a human is uncomfortable and can fix it at no one else's expense.. this isn't necessairly greed. (unless you're under the impression that everything everyone can possible do is motivated by greed as i stated earlier) but then you'd be engaging in a certain philosophical point of view/opinion which has an undermining fallacy in its theory as a philosophical theory

to say that humans are born greedy as a proven thing is just a little ridicilous.

this goes for communism too, there isnt one standard ideal of "communism" there are many many branches. many philosophers that have different versions/theories/views on it

BTW, earlier when I said helping others would make you rich, I didn't mean it literally. I meant it figuratively. Helping others will make you feel fulfilled but money will not.

Notice I said "Those". Most philosophers rehash things others have said, and live their lives "dedicated to their work", or come up with wholly unoriginal/uninspired ideas. The only thing ignorant around here are your 2nd grade reading comprehension skills.




1) No, because philosophy doesn't have to be right or wrong, it just is. You can't falsify philosophy, you can't do anything to it. Science is proven, philosophy is created, then critiqued, but can never be disproven.

2) Uh, or maybe the example about finding the best mate? You said that wasn't greed, and you're wrong, I showed you the textbook definition of greed, and you still said it wasn't. THAT right there is also ignorance.

Also--it IS at someone else's expense.

And no, it's not just a little ridiculous. About four or five people have agreed with me and given other examples, yet you refuse to believe them or ignore them. I'm starting to think your alternate identity is Friend14 or something.


To an extent this is true, but it varies from person to person. This isn't a universal truth.


Marxism is the given accepted form of communism, and it won't work unless there's a "perfect world" situation and no one is greedy, which no one can prove that greed can be hammered out of humanity so, even in theory, it'll never work.

And even if all that could be done, capitalism would work just as well.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Wiki isn't all knowing. Of course, you being as young as you are haven't had formal education with Existentialism. I rather like it. It's not feeble at all, but this is coming from a christian...so I'm not too surprised.[/QUOTE]

Right, well, it'd be stupid for me to critique something you know nothing about. I'll save that for some other thread.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Notice I said "Those". Most philosophers rehash things others have said, and live their lives "dedicated to their work", or come up with wholly unoriginal/uninspired ideas. The only thing ignorant around here are your 2nd grade reading comprehension skills.[/quote]

Me misreading you doesn't mean that you need to insult me. This entire quote shows your ignorance of what philosophy is about. Many philosophers make new ideas.. otherwise they wouldn't be studied.





1) again you simply don't know what you're talking about. You can falsify philosophy, falsifibility is actually something that deals greatly with science and philosophy. If something is unfalsifiable then it is neither scientific nor a valid philosophical argument, but since you've never taken any classes or studied these things clearly, you wouldn't know that.

2) The definition link you gave doesn't mention anything about it being inherent or not. This doesn't prove anything, I think we all understand what greed it, that isn't what we are talking about




So four or five other people agreeing with you on this forum makes it less ridiculous? I don't know what you mean by the Friend14 statement.






Marxism was the original form yes, but there have been so many variations throughout time that you can't make a blanket statement about COMMUNISM, but you can about marxism. Regardless, if even in theory it wouldn't work, then it wouldn't have had the effect on the world that it did. But this just isn't correct. It isn't fundamently flawed in theory, but in practice.

After a couple days without replies, a debate thread is pretty much over.

eh, I was unable to reply this weekend, but I see that DJ is banned so I suppose that was a pointless post, oh well atleast I got the last word, hah

haha. WRONG. I'm going to bump this thread for the next three days until he gets back.

Don't you dare...

Oh I do dare.

Oh no you din't!

Yay!

you won't

I will!

Rob boR
Freelancer recnaleerF
Obi_Kwiet teiwK_ibO

He will.

This thread makes me want to spam images.

..you won't

..He might

He shan't

Please do.

Yes.

No.

Up.

Except that philosophy by definition is observing the nature of something with logical reasoning instead of empirical methods...which is what science is.

Empiricism has too many presuppositions to be used in philosophy.

Also, stop giving the thread CPR. So... Nailface.

They might not be the same, but the one and the other are inseparable. Empiricism is itself "by definition" a philosophy. Positivism is the philosophy that science knowledge is the only authentic knowledge. Reductionism, the philosophy that systems can always be reduced to simpler components, is readily applied in science. In contention, emergence, in scientific terms, and, in philosophical terms, holism, go hand in hand in their attempt to disprove reductionistic paradigm.

Many, not all. Many doesn't even mean the majority. And I was referencing the majority of philosophers, which don't do **** except rehash old, tired ideas.


Not with facts though. Therefore it's not falsifiable to any concrete extent. PS--You telling anyone else they don't know what they're talking about is quite comical.


Um...how doesn't it make sense? Do you not read english? Do you not know how to use a dictionary? We DO all understand what greed is. It's defined in that link. Dodging your wrongness again?


Four or five older, more experienced, more economically/politically knowledgable forum members agreeing with me, as compared to one whom I'm fairly sure is somewhat insane agreeing with you...my claim isn't ridiculous in any amount. Communism has never been proven to work. You're the one with the workload to prove that it'd ever work. So far you haven't done that great of a job.


If it's flawed in practice...then why does it matter? Practice is the physical and logical application of theory. So in essence, you're saying something could work even though it wouldn't work if you tried to apply it as you say it could work. I'm really not getting how you've come out of this "with the last word". Also, if there's so many variations, list some and their ideas, please. Though, I'm sure you will never have read up on any of them before I called you on your BS, it'd be good to know that you at least have SOME backup to your argument, even if you didn't even know it yet.

you must have misread what I said earlier because I never said that we don't understand greed, I have been aruging that it hasn't been proven to be inherent to humans. do you not read english?!



but something like whether greed is inherent or not is not unfalsifiable. So I don't see your point



almost as comical as you starting a "no you're wrong!" battle with me



from a wikipedia search that took less than 10 seconds:

Marxism · Leninism
Trotskyism · Maoism
Left communism
Council communism
Anarchist communism
Christian communism



what the hell are you talking about? I like how you make blanket assumptions based on absolutly nothing. Your form of debating is quite comical indeed