*

Is religion logical?
Do you think humans are innately good?
Does Descartes achieve his goal with the cogito?
Herakleitos wrote war is the king
 What is PHilosophy?
structues of human consciousness
Most overrated philosopher?

*

+
Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy
.
> On 1Dec06 The One asks: Is religion logical? are
> religion and philosophy linked, as spinoza, anselm,
> aquinas, and so many others tried to make it, or
> should they be separate? [snip]
.
cybrwurm answers: First off, that's four questions.
That's three too many. However, since the first two
are directly related, that's okay; but the last two are
unnecessary, distracting, and pointless. This is NOT
the way to ask *A* question. Please DON'T abuse
your privilege of asking questions. ...
.
Anyway, the answer to your first question is 'no'.
Religion was "invented" by our very remote ancestors
when the prevailing emotions were fear and awe.
These are the main things that still motivate religion.
Philosophy is very much younger; first appearing a
mere 25 centuries ago or so.
.
As to your second question, religion and philosophy
are indeed linked; one might even say 'married', chiefly
in the form of theology. As to your third question, they
should very much be separate, because for most of
its history philosophy was held hostage to religion
at gunpoint, and forced to prostitute herself as
theology's "handmaiden", to labor as a slave for
the greater glory of the religion and its churches.
Philosophy only earned its freedom from the shackles
a few short centuries ago.
x

+
Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy
.
> On 1Dec06 Socrates asks:
> Do you think humans are innately good?
> Is human nature good or bad, or maybe both?
.
cybrwurm answers:
As to your second question first: It depends entirely on
whether you're talking about individuals or the whole race.
Individuals are certainly a complex mixture of both good
and evil; some of it we can control and encourage and
modify (to varying degrees, of course), and some of it we
can't. The race as a whole, however, is another matter.
It's very difficult to say if the race as a whole tends more
toward good, or more toward evil. I tend to think of the
race in general as neither good or evil. It just is what it is
(namely, a very young sentient species with some small
potential). It is like any other mindless elemental force:
thunder, fire, fields of wheat, etc. Of course, we *could*
always improve the species; if only we treated it with the
same care and attention that a horse breeder shows his
horses!
.
As to your first question: Now this ? is a bit trickier. It is
altogether a different sort of question than the second ?.
(btw: If you answerers out there can't see the distinction
I am referring to, then you really aren't equipped to deal
with a question like this.) Actually, there's really no easy
answer to this question. You have to bear in mind that the
species is still very young, so it may simply be too early
to come to any definite conclusions. You also have to
bear in mind that for most of our one million years
history, our ancestors were predators (ie. what
anthropologists call 'hunters and killers').
.
Of course, it's not politically correct to mention such
things in polite society, but there it is all the same. This is
not to say that they were all vicious and sadistic brutes;
they only did what they had to in order to survive. So
there's that; but there's also the fact that our more recent
ancestors did commit genocide upon it's blood brothers
the Neanderthals. So there's *that* too. Well, the
prospects are looking rather bleak now, aren't they? ...
.
But there is still some place for hope. The main reason
that so many people are no longer "killers" is chiefly due
to one thing: civilization. Without civilization we would
have no history. And without history we would be utterly
ignorant about who we really are; and completely at the
mercy of priests and any other charlatans with a tall tale
to sell.
.
Anyway, the point is that a careful study of the history
of civilizations shows very clearly that the process of
rationalization is the thread that binds all of earth's
multi-cultural history together. As these civilizations
advanced through time they tended to get less and less
bloody and sadistic. And this is true despite the fact that
war is always the favorite pastime of many. In sum, while
the evidence is as yet inconclusive, there yet remains
some small room for hope.
x

+
Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy >
.
> On 5Dec06 ryan k asks:  Does Descartes achieve
> his goal with the cogito? why or why not?
.
cybrwurm answers:
.
. . . Philosophy Built On Wax
[Or: Reality is NOT What U Perceive]
.
 So the Great Doubter sayeth to himself:
.
 "All these philosophies of yesteryear claim to show us
knowledge of very many things, but the conclusions of
their reasonings are not knowledge at all, but merely
opinion, for their truths lack the rigor and clarity of
mathematics. Therefore all their works are lacking in
true knowledge; for true knowledge must be simple
and clear to the point of absolute certainty, so as to
be incapable of being doubted. Away with them all then,
and let us begin anew! Let us build philosophy upon firm
foundations of certainty and reliable knowledge. Let us
begin by doubting everything; and then admit only that
which has passed the test of doubt.
.
 "What, then, can we really know about the world? Can
we trust in our senses to give us accurate information
about all the things in the world? Look at this funny
lump of wax here on my table. Now it is cold and hard
and solid as a rock. But when I apply a little heat to it,
it becomes warm and soft and pliable as dough. And when
I apply even more heat it becomes a liquid; clear and
smelly and too hot to handle. What then do my senses
tell me about the nature of wax? That it is hot and cold,
soft and hard, solid and liquid, colorless and colorful,
odorless and stinky.
.
 "Clearly this is most absurd; a contradiction of terms
that makes no logical sense whatsoever! Therefore
our senses are ultimately unreliable and incapable of
providing us with true knowledge about the world.
Therefore only Reason can provide our minds with the
true knowledge that we need. And the most basic truth
that escapes all doubt is the fact of my own personal
awareness, and the fact that this awareness (ie. this
'I' thingy) is now doubting and reasoning: . . .
I think, therefore I am!"
.
 Now the most curious thing about Descartes' new
method of philosophy is the strange way in which he
dismisses the senses as a source of reliable information
about the world. Please note that he uses the experi-
mental and empirical method (so beloved by science),
such that he could just as easily have said, 'I observe,
therefore I am' (ie. observing is logically prior to
thinking and reasoning about what you observe).
.
Thus Descartes observes the wax as it moves from one
physical condition to the next in response to external
forces being directed upon it (ie. fire). He very care-
fully observes these changing states and conditions of
the wax, and the sensory data / information that they
provide, and then concludes that because wax behaves
so irrationally (by providing contradictory sensory
data) that our senses cannot be trusted. In other words,
Descartes relies upon the accuracy of sense perception
to show that the senses are unreliable! Apparently this
little contradiction, this little logical inconsistency,
this minor wrench in the gears (as it were) was beyond,
or perhaps beneath, his notice. :(
x

+
Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy >
.
> On 10Dec06 Monica asks: What you think?
> Herakleitos wrote "war is the king and father of all".
> Did societies and institutions of any sort developed or
> evolved in response to the stimulus of war? Could one
> argue that the positive effects of war outweighed the
> negative effects, or not?
.
cybrwurm answers:
Heraclitus is right, of course. The trouble is that he is
one of the most difficult philosophers to wrap your head
around because all that we have of his writings are
various fragments attributed to him. Consequently
there is no way to be sure what exactly he means or
intends by this or that saying. Therefore Heraclitus
is one philosopher that requires a *great* deal of
interpretation.
.
Here's my interpretation: War is king because war is
mankind's favorite pastime; it is what men (and a lot
of women too) do best. Even Canada, a supposedly
"advanced" and "peaceful" country is now engaged
in an evil war it cannot win. Why? Is it not because
war is the king and father of all?
.
As to your first question, the answer is yes. The most
dramatic example of a society responding to war is the
ancient Spartans, who basically turned everyone into
soldiers, and the entire country into an army camp.
They took their warfare *very* seriously!
.
As to your 2nd question, the answer is yes again.
Obviously, anyone who says 'no' to this question is a
dolt, and should be avoided at all cost. 4X: Suppose you
are a small, but peaceful, country, and one day your
neighboring country decides to expand its borders by
taking over your country. Will you just let them walk in
and kill you and your people? Or will you resist? If you
resist, you go to war. If you go to war and defeat the
invaders, you have just proved that the positive effects
of war *greatly* outweigh the negative effects!
x

 +
Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy >
.
> On 9Dec06 Little Boat Tart asks:
> What is PHilosophy?
.
cybrwurm answers:
 Bertrand Russell said that philosophy was midway
between science and theology. I tend to agree with BR
in the recognition that philosophy is distinct from both
science and theology; but the question is: What is it
about philosophy that makes it unique and separate?
Science, in the most general sense, is the study of the
universe (ie. a small bit of it at a time). In the same
way, Theology is the study of the divine, and its
relations with this world and humanity.
.
 Now the biggest problem with philosophy today is
that science and theology have taken away most of
philosophy's traditional subject matter, and left it with
precious little that it can call its own. This is why
philosophy is now so barren and lifeless and passionless
and devoid of any real contact with people and their
lives. Philosophy today is such a bad joke primarily
because most people have a seriously flawed under-
standing about what philosophy is.
.
 Philosophy is NOT an enterprise that seeks to know
things for the sake of increasing knowledge. No indeed,
philosophy is a *practical* activity that seeks to change
and improve minds and lives! Philosophy is the *art* of
reasoning about anything and everything, and as such
its subject matter is anything and everything.
.
 Heraclitus said it best over 25 centuries ago:
"The goal of philosophy is not to know the world,
but rather to put men on the right path."
x

+
Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy >
.
> On 14Dec06 em asks: React on this:....?
> Do the mathematical structures used by science
> reflect the nature of human perception or does it
> reflect the structues of human consciousness
.
cybrwurm answers:
 Human perception is an ongoing and ever-changing
process that includes both immediate and mediate
forms of perception. The immediate mode is the realm
of intuition, while the mediate mode is the realm of
intellect. Impressions and sensations are taken up by
the mind and organized into intelligible categories, and
this focused and intentional process is what we call
human perception.
.
> or the contributions of our conceptual schemes...
.
 That is correct. Mathematics, and science in general, is
a result of what we may call "pure thought" (ie. logical
or discursive reasoning), and this occurs after, not
during, perception. Conceptual schemes are built to
house and organize the results or findings of our limited
and particular perceptions, so as to increase our
knowledge of the universe and how it works.
.
Of course, Philosophy is also a function of pure thought,
but it differs from science chiefly in its focus. Science is
concerned with organizing what we may call "material
facts", while philosophy is more interested in "spiritual
facts", or (in other words) the "big picture".  :)
x

+
Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy >
.
> 25Dec06 SaGaNiC asks: Most overrated philosopher?
.
cybrwurm answers:
Almost all of the answerers here are wrong, of course. :)
Confucius, Nietzsche, Aristotle, and Descartes are all of
them philosophical giants. Their influence on the past
history of the world, and philosophy, is nothing less than
phenomenal. And it's not over yet. All of these super-
men continue to capture hearts and captivate minds all
around the world. Kinda hard to overrate guys like that.
Now if you don't care for the way this or that one thinks
... well, that's one thing; but to call them overrated for
*that* is just plain unjustified bias.
.
My nominee for most overrated philosopher might be
someone like Sartre, for example. This is not to deny
or belittle any of his contributions to philosophy. He is
overrated because *far* too many people see him as
the first and last word regarding Existentialism ...
And that is simply NOT the case. So in *that* sense
he is the most overrated philosopher; ie. I certainly
*don't* mean to say that he is a bad philosopher.
.
BTW: Merry X-mass all!
x

textman

*