hey guys i know this is slightly late but i'm interested setting up a philosophy meet-up come october/november 2012 if one doesn't already exist. if not, a teh tarik session in oct/nov would be great

i did my degree in philosophy in lyon, france and i will be returning back home come oct/nov. the reason why i would like to set up a philo meet-up so that we may explore certain themes together, read up, discuss, etc.

deadlocks,

you seem certain that meeting up and discussing philosophical themes won't be useful. in the end, philosophy is the "love of wisdom" and as long as you have that, it is the end that matters, not the means, as said by kant. ultimately, it is your choice and your own will to refuse my proposition and i can't change that.

as sartre puts it, you have free will and decision making implies a value judgement on a thing or an action, i.e., water will have value to a thirsty man in a desert but not so much to a man in a café. after all, he has a choice between all the beverages and he might see more value in a cup of tea rather than water. similarly, if the man is suicidal, he will not see water or food as having value at all!

having said that, is there at the very end, an intrinsic value in water, food or life, independent of the subject?

just like the above, i guess to you, my proposition has no value. but does it have an intrinsic value i wonder?

anyway, your question : "Will you shape your life, and will your life shape you? Accept your fate and be happy? Or defy it and be glorious?"

your questions compose of existential and moral philosophy. questions wrestled by philosophers of old like plato, aristotle up to kant and its culminating point in sartre and heidegger. philosophy being a study, it is formalised and contains on its own a specialised jargon by which i have restructured your questions into "philosophy speak" to ease your hermeneutical research in philosophical texts.

the questions posed by them are :

1. "why is there something instead of nothing?"
2. "what is being?"
3. "what is the "thing in itself" (essence) of being?"
4. "is everything determined or does free will exist?"
5. "if free will exists, what is the meaning/value of our actions?"
6. "how to live a virtuous life?"
7. "how do i behave? according to my desires or the universal law of nature (deontic)?"

i'm afraid due to the lengths at which i will have to write to explain them all along with time constraints, you should do the reading and research on your own.

to start with, u can start by reading about the difference of opinion between "idealism and materialism" and later on sartre and the philosophers i have mentioned. from there you will get a semblance of an answer to your question.

as for meeting up face-to-face, i had the impression that a "human contact" was what you were looking for. but now i agree with you that there is no need for both of us to do just that. however, i will continue to find someone that i may discuss philosophical themes with.

have a good day deadlocks.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Jul 14 2012, 12:18 AM

https://www.coursera.org/course/introphil

the above is a free online introductory course to philosophy that'll begin in january 2013.

sign up, participate and you'll get a certificate in the end

Nope you don't understand. I was preventing you the dangers of hedonism which comes from your newly discovered knowledge.

[/quote]


deadlocks,

i find this reply unsatisfactory. what is your definition of being a hedonist?

please note what Montaigne said, "Philosophy makes those who are devoted to her, happy and cheerful."

is it then wrong to be a hedonist?

in philosophy, you always need to explain what is the object in question. that means explaining all the different views and opinions that are associated with the object in question.

personally speaking, from your reply to my proposition, it wasn't implied in any way that you were trying to prevent me from the "dangers of hedonism". but whatever. i don't know what is true (i'm no mindreader) so i choose not to decide / pursue it further (see scepticism).

p.s : concerning the link, you're welcome. good luck with the course.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Aug 2 2012, 09:26 PM

so what is philosophy then to you my dear deadlocks?

from how you explained the workings of philosophy, we shouldn't reference any source to back up our argument. if you do this in university, you'll fail your first semester exams.

it's funny that you like philosophy if you think you can solve philosophical problems without reading other's approach to them. if that is the love for wisdom and knowledge, then i can only assume it is only the love for your own.

but okay, maybe you're coming up with a brand new philosophical system that burns all thousands of years of tradition and for that reason, there will be no need to reference anything.

wow really if you accomplish that, you could very well be the first malaysian recipient for a nobel prize in literature! i can't wait... malaysia boleh!

edit : reading philosophy provides a certain disposition to a person to question everything, including his own beliefs and proceed to put them to the test (see Descartes, sorry). can you comfortably say you weren't being dogmatic in your replies? If one does not have any "doubt" or enquiry but see the apex being his own perfect being, i suppose reading An Idiot's Guide to Being a Dictator would make more sense.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Aug 10 2012, 02:16 AM

haha i laugh as i read your reply.

indeed it is pointless for us to meet up as u mentioned before.

i say this because you are in love with your own self. you potray yourself as a sage, walking a lonely road to whatever truth you're looking for. you my friend should start living life.

btw, your comments about the political environment is incoherent.

race, culture, customs are all but relative. what i cherish are universal values.

anyway, you have shown your true colours so whatever and enjoy your "philosophy" or whatever it is.

kthnxbai

wow this thread is up again. let's see, mr. deadlocks the self proclaimed sage. i have 3 individual responses to your points.

1. so who are these people that you claim to be great philosophers? from what u wrote, it is assumed that u know them.
2. relativity is a universal value no? look at the theory of relativity that reigns the universe. when i said what i cherish are universal values, that means, each and ever culture has an equal amount of importance and therefore non should proclaim itself a master culture. i guess, i have to spell everything out for u as u think talking about philosophy is pointless. just look at your previous writings (your take on philosophy) and you will see.
3. on the face of things, u will have seen that you should ask yourself the question concerning pride and humility. u don't seek the truth and it has been shown in your previous writings. what u want is recognition (as a sage, philosopher, etc), and that, i'm afraid i don't think i can give. you are but a sham and a proud man.

---

Added on November 7, 2012, 5:27 pmhey guys i created a group on facebook calledPhilosophy Discussion (Malaysia) Philosophy Discussion (Malaysia)

feel free to join and discuss!

hopefully one day we'll get a sufficient amount of people to organise socials and the like.

thanks!

---

Added on November 8, 2012, 1:05 pmhey CBM,

those are interesting questions that you asked and most of them interspersed into various topics under the heading of philosophy. i will not be answering them, but instead restructure your questions, and hopefully narrow down the key areas for you to concentrate your focus.

based on your questions, i think we could ask :

firstly, what is philosophy and who does it? is it based on reason/logos? according to descartes, reason is well distributed in the world, meaning everyone has them and thus philosophy is open to all. this leads me to the second question.

who or what is a philosopher? what are the criteria/conditions to qualify oneself to be a philosopher? is it based on material possessions? reason? does one have to be formally trained, meaning formally, instrumentally applied reason?

lastly, the big one concerning malaysia, i will try my best to explain and not use too much academic terms (it's tedious sorry) so bear with me.

malaysia being a country and itself being run by a government, requires us to think of political philosophy. politics is claimed to the mother of all sciences. but as philosophy does, it questions, so why is politics the mother of all science? first, we should first decouple the two, politics and philosophy, philosophy being the substance and politics being the adjective.

if philosophy is to an extent based on reason and it's end goal is the Truth (disputable), we shall seek to apply the same to politics. furthermore, i shall proceed by asking what is the essence of city/country.

what is politics? its roots date back to greece, polis being the city, it is the art or science of running the city. according to plato, politics is the quest for as you have mentioned above about forms or platonic forms. forms being absolutes, i.e., good, beauty, justice, they are the "goal" which all things strive to be. it is an ideal, an idea.

this applies to the city as per plato, where it is ordered to the "end goal" in the form/idea of "justice". this made plato ask then, what is the best government regime, democracy, aristocracy, etc that best allow the idea of justice to reign through the city.

in the middle ages, you have your st. augustine who said the city is guided by god. therefore, the "form" there was God. now, in modern times, we have marx who spoke about historical materialism. he was inspired by hegel (phenomenology of the spirit) and thought the city is driven or pushed to amass wealth and that our relation of production (social classes, domination, alienation, etc) is supported by a superstructure (religion, laws, political institutions, morals,etc) of a certain place and time. politics according to marx is thus a way of maintaining a certain "relation of production", be it feudalism, slavery, capitalism, socialism, etc. any desire for a change is done by action relying on theory.

marx's link to hegel is his historical dialectics. according to hegel, everything changes according to the triadic thesis, antithesis and synthesis and nothing is ever static just like time, it flows constantly. to give a rough example, thesis (industrial revolution, laissez faire), antitheses (socialist movement, improve working conditions for the masses) and your synthesis (social democracy). history and time doesn't stop and hegel's triadic hypothesis claims to help us understand how things, as he said "all that exists is reasonable", meaning there is a reason for an existing thing/reality. a future reality IS as it will be, according to our act or omission at the present.

on the other hand we have aristotle and his political philosophy which is intertwined with ethics. his take is interesting as as an individual, our "ethics" through constant practice of virtues has the end goal of "happiness" or "the good life". having mentioned that politics involves a city/country and within it community/communities. politics play the role in harnessing the collective to reach the common goal (happiness) via agreeing on a common good.

going back to the question - is politics the mother of all science? for me personally i think the act and purpose of politics as a manner of exercising power. if i am correct, i cite foucault who says "power is everywhere" even in our own houses. power affects us and we are made to behave a certain way. it is seen via the urbanism of a city, architecture of buildings, our laws and custom, our education, etc (see marx's superstructure). power in general is all encompassing and it dominates our everyday lives, be it mundane or otherwise through various techniques derived from a broad range of areas of study.

power is said by foucault to be oppressive, we are suppressed by it, and we repress ourselves due to these suppressions (psychology). stretching your imagination, Politics (with a capital P) has therefore the capacity of power to change not only life out in public but down to people's private intimate lives.

so there u go, a very short summary before delving in to your question.

so what is the spirit that animates malaysia? what is its purpose? is it material goods or happiness, justice, god? does material goods bring happiness (for all)? is it possible for one to achieve happiness without material goods? what is the role of the government? what is the role of the citizen and the idea of citizenship? what are its rights and obligations? these are yet another bunch of standalone questions that may help u.

anyway, this reminds me of the famous maxim of socrates "know thyself". i guess that's what philosophy is, it helps us question and decipher our realities/illusions and hopefully come to an answer or solution. then again, this solution should be questioned and so on and so forth. philosophy never stops questioning.

anyway whoever is interested please join Philosophy Discussion (Malaysia) so that we may be able to discuss topical, profane, etc philosophical issues in the future!

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Nov 8 2012, 05:27 PM

LOL

okayla all u want to hear is, "yes you're right" isn't it? okay i'm gonna say it then. wait for it.... breathe....

*drum rolls*

YES YOU'RE RIGHT!

*cymbals fade*

are u happy now? was it all worth it? do u feel like a philosopher now? i bet you do don't you.

go forth and spread your message deadlocks! the world awaits!

haih philosopher deadlocks, go read up on rhetorics and you'll see everyone does it, not just politicians but even professors from across the board do practice rhetorics to get their points across. is there then a difference between good rhetorics and bad rhetorics?

hahaha it doesn't matter man. call it whatever you want deadlock but in philosophy (i shouldn't have to tell u this), this would be known as... what is it deadlocks? i'm sure u know it wan.... yes correct, you are right again... methodology.

ay anyway sorry for being arrogant for not kowtowing to a philosopher in front of me. but u see, i have too much pride in what i think (re: freedom of thought).

mmm yes yes i see it now. it's really clear what u wrote. wow it amazes me how there's so much information in the things u wrote. like really, u don't explain anything at all, unlike some philosophy hacks out there who publish books and we are made to read them in our course outlines.

but thank you deadlocks yes i see it now, the morality behind the questions yes. that's really deep. but i'm sure i'm not the first person who told u that. i will meditate on your latest gem of a philosophical insight. thank you ah

hey darkvader,

well yeah i guess there needs to be critical thinking, but in defence of (my need for) citing, personally i saw it is a "form" of methodology and i sought to give a certain reference point for further inquiry into the subject matter. while i'm not comparing what i wrote to be fantastic, to give u an analogy, in scientific studies, you need a certain method to show that an experiment is demonstrable on a consistent basis. but anyway yeah, in a TT session, there will be less citations and more free flow talking.

secondly, don't get me wrong... i am for speaking your mind and having a critical mind just like what deadlocks opined. but just say we follow deadlock's method of having your own "philosophy through experience", it is akin to asking a man on a beach to design an apartment complex that will be used for construction. no doubt he has experience in building sand castles, but has he ability to design an actual building in real life? unfortunately, u will need to read books in order to design an actual functional building.

again don't get me wrong it's not that i have some bourgeois morals where u need a degree in order to philosophize! in architecture, one the most famous architect, corbusier was an autodidact who learnt the art via his own efforts in reading and cultivating his skill! going back to our little exchange between deadlocks and i, i think he's merely building sand castles in the sky, meaning he would like to "philosophize" but without the effort to read what others have said on a subject matter.

but anyway, yeah u should join the "philosophy discussion (malaysia)" group on facebook where we'll try to organise such a teh tarik session. so yeah all is welcomed!

---

Added on December 25, 2012, 7:40 pmyeah darkvader, that will be a tough affair ehh... you want to have critical thinking on this "it" without doing the groundwork of reading. sure we can chip in our two cents on this "it" but there's nothing better than first hand information, meaning you do the reading yourself. at least this way u can verify the veracity of our statements and come to your own conclusion. cos in the end, i'm afraid what you want sounds more like spoon feeding and as a result not really "critical thinking".

heh heh, another anology (sorry), u have religious groups telling and interpreting the holy text to a bunch of people. but upon reading it first hand (from a source of which i forgot), jesus didn't say anything against the LGBT as i was told. teehehe, yeah i will need to verify that bit myself but i thought it was interesting...

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Dec 25 2012, 07:53 PM

thanks man for the "praise" and good luck with everything!

lol really lol.

i just came back from my extended holiday and believe you me, when i was in langkawi i truly and well laughed my ass off reading the passionate proses that is the philosophy of deadlocks or as we shall henceforth name it deadlockism.

in deadlockism, you shall not conduct any research. read but keep it to a minimal. to be curious and eager to delve deeper into a subject would render the reader morally corrupt. furthermore, when asked about a certain subject, feel free to blow your own trumpet and build castles in the sky... who cares if the foundations of the arguments are hollow! at least people see that you are passionate and opinionated! therefore, in deadlockism, he who makes the most "noise" wins.

p.s: deadlockism may seem like a short definition to the proverb "empty vessels make the most noise". nay. at least vessels have its use. lets not desecrate such a fine household item shall we

p.p.s: it's so obvious u have no clue whatsoever, deadlocks. but okay, i commend u for being so stubborn, headstrong about your convictions. man, i believe in real life and away from your keyboard warring ways, you're pretty much a difficult person. i hope your gf/wife has a better time than i do trying to talk some sense to u. god bless your woman's soul, she sacrificed her own happiness for yours and this daily performance of miracles of extreme tolerance to mental torture makes her second only to jesus in terms of unconditional love towards a fellow human bean. she is both a saint and a martyr.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Jan 8 2013, 01:11 AM

hey man stop crying like a baby with your so called "ad hominem" attacks. if u can dish it out yourself, you can handle it.

personally speaking, as one consistently reads philosophy, he is exposed to a wide array of ideas, which could seem at first overwhelming to the mind. in this instance, there is a need to take notes on the book he reads, at each page he will deconstruct the various arguments and its logical flow, such logics can be "simplified" in having "true: premises to arrive at a sound conclusion, i.e., 2 (premise) + 1 (premise) = 3 (conclusion); therefore, the idea of 2 and the idea of 1 makes the idea of 3. u get the picture, there is a logical flow to 3.

as for your statements, they are often, "you lack morality in your statements, you are insecure, etc". okay then, please explain, "what is morals" or at least your position as to which school of thought do u adhere to. this way, it would've been possible for me to actually reply you. but no, not only did u not explain what kind of a moralist are you, u merely brushed it off as a "common sense" thing to you. my question is, where is the premise? how did u arrive at such a conclusion? is there a logical flow? no. so yeah i don't see your arguments to even want to bother answering you. why? it's just plain pointless.

oh yea btw deadlockism is merely a summary of your system of philosophy. if you find it utterly ridiculous, don't blame me.

yeah sure u believe in the quotes u read. u read the crust of it but never understanding its deeper meaning.

i'm sure u will hate me for telling you this but the answer lies in "platonic forms". dear god u might think, more reading???

by reading for 5 minutes this foundation/basics of which philosophy is built upon, that being the "platonic forms" you will know why reading about the deeds of heroes, admiring beauty, the feeling of love, etc is a universal thing.

haih deadlocks ahh deadlocks... your questions are goodla. but if u actually read and understand as u claimed you wouldn't have asked such questions. haih, i expected more of u. all your questions are mere tautologies. they are all but the same thing repeated over and over again.

in this dialogue ill show u why precision is important in language.

papa: hey deadlocks i hear that you are an expert in antique books. i want to buy a couple of antique books. can u order them for me?

deadlocks: yeah i am a connoisseur of fine and rare antique books with much experience in this business. sure ill help u out, how many u want. i have cashflow problems myself so can u be precise?

papa: a couple will do.

*deadlock goes on to buy 4 antique books.

deadlocks: nah here are your antique books.

papa: but i ordered only a couple!

deadlocks: what do u mean?

papa: a couple means two. as in two lovers make a couple, do u get it?

deadlocks: *** nia ma chao hai.... what am i supposed to do with the rest? i thought a couple meant a few or 4 or 5.

papa: go check the dictionary

deadlocks: but in my experience it means a few 4 or 5.

papa: go check the dictionary

deadlocks: you lowlife scum u screwed me of my business.

papa: go check the dictionary, u did this to yourself.

deadlocks: what do u mean i did this to myself, all my years of business a couple always is a few, 4 or 5. how can u say its different now. anyway, when i talk to people, this is what i always mean... so u must have misunderstood me. u are the guilty party.

papa: i use the dictionary definition of "couple" so i will only pick up two antique books. the rest i have no need for them. sorry!

deadlocks: you should have said 2 then instead of a couple!

papa: when i said a couple it was clear in itself no? i assumed that in running a business, you would clarify any doubt that u might have onto the client! you could have asked me to be precise if you didn't know.

deadlock: but i know a couple means a few, 4 or 5.

papa: which is the wrong definition...

and so on and so forth...


-------------------

do u get it now why it is important to know the definition of a word that we communicate? it is important for a variety of reasons, trade, academic stuff, organisation, etc.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Jan 8 2013, 11:09 AM

hahaha deadlockism at its best!

obviously u have no clue at all about platonic forms but yet u decided to make it all up. very nice, that just proved theory correct about deadlockism. again, in philosophy, you need to give evidence to justify a claim and this is yet another evidence in my arsenal of proofs.

p.s: in deadlockism, you shall not conduct any research. read but keep it to a minimal. to be curious and eager to delve deeper into a subject would render the reader morally corrupt. furthermore, when asked about a certain subject, feel free to blow your own trumpet and build castles in the sky... who cares if the foundations of the arguments are hollow! at least people see that you are passionate and opinionated! therefore, in deadlockism, he who makes the most "noise" wins.

i agree with the last sentence where a person can have a more philosophic mind than someone with a philosophy degree. is a judge the epitome of justice personified? there may well be a politician or a citizen who isn't a judge who feels a greater need for justice.

anyway i disagree with philosophy doesn't have to be learned, it's all about deep thinking.

now my answer to this sentence, to whoever who chooses to read this and is curious to resolve this is, tabula rasa vs innate ideas.

as for you midnight, if indeed philosophy doesn't have to be learned but thought of deeply, think deeply about this - tabula rasa vs innate ideas. please midnight, refrain from using any external aid, i.e., google, wikipedia, philosophy books, etc in making your argument.

again midnight, please think deeply about tabula rasa vs innate ideas. please do not consult any books or the internet or any ideas expounded by philosophers in arriving at a conclusion.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Jan 12 2013, 07:33 PM

let me clarify my current stance to u. i'm gonna talk to u, deadlocks, as a person now... not as someone who wants to discuss philosophy.

firstly, thanks for the advice.

next, why should i correct or discuss with you, deacklocks? if you are curious enough, u will rely on your own effort. i tried to reason with u but all i got for that was "you're in love with power, you are arrogant you are not humble, blah blah blah." oh sagely deadlocks, once bitten twice shyla, you don't know meh?

so yeah, to put it plainly ok... google and read "platonic forms" yourself. if u are truly pro-active, hands-on, curious about philosophy, humble like u advice others to be, etc, you would have done your research about "platonic forms" before u even asserted confidently on some "platonic forms = shallow thinking" whatever cock definitionla bro.

p.s: next time when you get a rash... go to the doctor and if he tells you u have skin cancer... argue with him and say in your experience, it is a mosquito bite. if he tries to correct you, call him arrogant and not humble enough or deep enough to understand your diagnostic of the rash being a mosquito bite. in my opinion, go seek a second opinion.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Feb 13 2013, 05:01 PM