Question

All things considered, which of these 3 philosophic stances best describes you?

Answer 1

<-Pragmatist
prag·mat·ic
praɡˈmadik/
adjective
adjective: pragmatic

dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
"a pragmatic approach to politics"
synonyms: practical, matter-of-fact, sensible, down-to-earth, commonsensical, businesslike, having both/one's feet on the ground, **********, no-nonsense;
informalhard-nosed
"she remains pragmatic in the most emotional circumstances"
antonyms: impractical
relating to philosophical or political pragmatism.
Linguistics
of or relating to pragmatics.

Origin
late 16th century (in the senses ‘busy, interfering, conceited’): via Latin from Greek pragmatikos ‘relating to fact,’ from pragma ‘deed’ (from the stem of prattein ‘do’). The current sense dates from the mid 19th century.

Answer 2

That my background is conservative which is by the way as far from the truth as one could get.

Answer 3

I didn't say that! You asked a question as to,----why bring FREAKIN religion into it? Now I'm answering your questions and replying to your comments. You made a statement about Occam's razor. Since there's been a great philosophical debate over the millennia on the beginnings of man and or said man's purpose, with you being such an enlightened individual and all, I made an educated comment and received a screaming Mimi response! I must say that if you were to be involved in some of the great philosophical debates on simplicity, happiness, existence, ***, and just the general question of, why? You would tend to be washed out rather quickly.

Immanuel Kant, Stated that,"all human acts are determined, all that is or could be experienced is thinkable. He also stated Annie adequate ethical theory provides necessary and universal principles, nothing based on sense experience provides necessary and universal principles so no adequate ethical theory is based on sense experience."

Plato, "if ethics depends on ***'s will, then something is good because *** desires it."

St. Anselm, if *** exists in the understanding and not reality then there can be conceived of being greater than ***.

C S Lewis, "there is an objective moral law if there is an objective moral law then there is a sou...

I didn't say that! You asked a question as to,----why bring FREAKIN religion into it? Now I'm answering your questions and replying to your comments. You made a statement about Occam's razor. Since there's been a great philosophical debate over the millennia on the beginnings of man and or said man's purpose, with you being such an enlightened individual and all, I made an educated comment and received a screaming Mimi response! I must say that if you were to be involved in some of the great philosophical debates on simplicity, happiness, existence, ***, and just the general question of, why? You would tend to be washed out rather quickly.

Immanuel Kant, Stated that,"all human acts are determined, all that is or could be experienced is thinkable. He also stated Annie adequate ethical theory provides necessary and universal principles, nothing based on sense experience provides necessary and universal principles so no adequate ethical theory is based on sense experience."

Plato, "if ethics depends on ***'s will, then something is good because *** desires it."

St. Anselm, if *** exists in the understanding and not reality then there can be conceived of being greater than ***.

C S Lewis, "there is an objective moral law if there is an objective moral law then there is a source of the moral law if there is a source of the moral law than there is a *** so then there is a ***."

Hartshones, "*** is a perfect being, an all perfect being knows everything, all beings that know everything are influenced by everything, so *** is influenced by everything."

René Descartes, "if we have sensations of alleged material objects and yet no material objects exist then *** is a deceiver, *** isn't a deceiver." "We have sensations of alleged material objects, so material objects exist."

Aristotle, "If there's knowledge than either some things are known without proof or we can prove every premise by previous arguments in definitely, we can't prove every premise by previous arguments and definitely, there is knowledge, so some things are known without proof."

William Occam, "if *** is omnipotent, then he could make hatred inherently good, unless there is a contradiction in hatred being inherently good." "The last sentence has no contradiction, so *** could make hatred inherently good."

(more)

Answer 4

I didn't bring the biblical passages into this, YOU DID.

I said, Occam's Razor. You followed with.

"I suppose that Occam's razor would prove "creationism" over evolution."

And it has escalated from there. You opened a door, that for me is better left closed. By the way, I' pagan, do you think I believe in creationism?

Answer 5

Alright then here is your pagan Babylonian Creation Epic. Actually, there were various creation stories in ancient Babylon, but the one that has become well known is a myth having to do with Marduk, Babylon’s national ***. Briefly, the story tells of the existence of the ******* Tiamat and the *** Apsu, who became the parents of other deities. The activities of these **** became so distressing to Apsu that he determined to destroy them. However, Apsu was killed by one of these ****, Ea, and when Tiamat sought to avenge Apsu, she was killed by Ea’s son Marduk, who then split her body, using half of it to form the sky and using the other half in connection with the earth’s establishment. Marduk’s subsequent acts included creating mankind (with Ea’s aid), using the blood of another ***, Kingu, the director of Tiamat’s hosts.

If you want to get into pagan **** in their creation of the earth and man go right ahead but your comments seem foolish and you obviously are not a pagan otherwise you wouldn't think pagans are atheistic! You claim to be a writer?

And no I am not quoting P.J. Wiseman's book!

Answer 6

So you're quoting from, P. J. Wiseman's book. So once again your point as how it relates to, Occam's razor?

Answer 7

Consider that "No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude." CONSERVATIVE Science philosopher Karl Popper

Answer 8

More unfounded ***********? "all knowledge is provisional, conjectural, hypothetical"-----Karl Popper

Karl Popper stresses in particular that there is no unique way, no single method such as induction, which functions as the route to scientific theory, a view which Einstein personally ******** with his affirmation that ‘There is no logical path leading to [the highly universal laws of science]. They can only be reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love of the objects of experience’.

Guesstimation?

Answer 9

"More unfounded ***********?" One being ...?

i agree with Popper and your quotes about him. Albert relied heavily on intuitive visualizations, but when it came time for proofs, he solicitied the help of a college buddy who knew calculus far better than Albert did. The "path" requires intuition. The proof requires **** math.

Answer 10

i made no such **********. It's probably a mistake to make *********** about ***********.

Answer 11

I'm guessing you're not very familiar with philosophy? The divine has everything to do with original philosophy. Philo of Alexandria used Greek philosophies to reinterpret the Genesis account. The apostle Paul Paul had an encounter with “the Epicurean and the Stoic philosophers.” (Ac 17:18) They termed the apostle a “chatterer,” using the Greek word sper·mo·lo′gos, which literally applies to a bird that picks up seeds. The word also carries the thought of one who picks up scraps of knowledge and repeats such without order or method. Those philosophers disdained Paul and his message. Basically the Epicurean philosophy was that the obtaining of pleasure, particularly mental pleasure, was the chief good in life (1Co 15:32); though it acknowledged ****, it explained these as being beyond human experience and concern. Now if you're talking about science and the difference between creationism and Darwinism i.e. evolution than you could make a case for your statement about "why would you bring Freakin religion into it" that's science or philosophy of science. Aristotle and Plato had definite philosophical opinions and one that Occam borrowed.

In metaphysics, Aristotelianism profoundly influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophical and theological thought during the Middle Ages and continues to influence Christian theology, especially the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church. Aristotle was well known among medieval Muslim intellectuals and revered as "The First Teacher."

Answer 12

You are the one that said you are pagan! That you didn't believe in creation because you are pagan! That was a foolish statement because being a pagan does not mean you don't believe in a *** or that a particular *** created mankind or the earth or the universe. So which pagan *** do you worship? You made the statement you are pagan, so I suppose you were not telling the truth?

Answer 13

You're the one that started the whole friggen religious thing, I can be pagan, and still believe in, “evolution,” just as a Christian can. What I said in the beginning was in no way related to religion, it was related to my last post. If I wanted to bring friggen religion into it I would have. You ******* something you shouldn’t have, and you know what happens when you, ***-u-me.

Answer 14

Creationists simply can't conceive of the reality that there's never been a beginning and will never be an ***. Understanding (or trying to) infinity provides the Occam's razor solution and is by far the simplest explanation. THX for your forebearance with the self-righteous dogmatist.

Answer 15

Hmm There's never been a beginning and will never be an ***? You must not have a specified opinion concerning the validity of the evolutionary theory, if you did you would believe in a beginning, or an *** for that matter! By your comment you've just disproven your theory of evolution.

In Ockham’s view, *** always has commanded and always will command kindness. Nevertheless, it is possible for him to command otherwise. This possibility is a straightforward requirement of divine omnipotence: *** can do anything that does not involve a contradiction.

Answer 16

To understand evolution and ourselves we must understand the term "infinite finitudes" ("Religion and Nothingness"). Infinity has evolution occuring again and again infinitely. This understanding doesn't disprove evolution, it explains its inevitablity. Your failure to understand allows you to continue the rationalization that support your extant beliefs.

By my definition, *** inherently includes the contradictions of the relativistic world since it is contained in the Absolute(***), another understanding required for those seeking complete understanding.

Answer 17

Well if it's been going on for an infinity, and had continued beginnings, Then life must not be too difficult to create! Although now they realize that their *********** about the universe contracting and collapsing in on itself was wrong, so now you've eliminated another Big Bang unless they're wrong about that also.

Answer 18

Big Bang remains a theory being tested. Some believe that those types of singularities within universes can prompt new universes. From my studies, i think string/brane theory holds more water, but in either case infinite being makes simpler and far more sense than any belief in an absolute beginning or ******. Lucretius recognized this even when he was calling the Christians of his era "simple-minded." Bruno stole his writings from some Catholic archives and recognizing the truth of it, died rather than recant that truth. My point? The understanding is ancient. Buddhist knew it long before Lucretius did.

i think life is not difficult to create given an infinite number of opportunities. In fact it too must then become infinite. Any aspect of infinity is also infinite. The reality that we live in a world of our finite perceptions keeps us from comprehending infinity.

Answer 19

So you're basing this on the bible?

Answer 20

Wrong, the simplest explanation, not divine. And why would you bring freakin religion into it?

Answer 21

I know that I have been both optimistic and pessimistic, at times. All things considered, I know that I am painfully realistic.

Answer 22

While it is important to know your limitations, it is equally important for you to acknowledge the potential that EVERY human being (especially in the US, regardless of your skin color, ethnicity, or race) has to improve himself of herself.

Answer 23

You're into the 1st Noble Truth. Consider the second. THX for your contribution.

Answer 24

Would you care to expound on that?

Answer 25

Sure. That life is difficult is the first noble truth. The second explains why. The 3rd is that there is a way to be liberated from suffering. The 4th explains how.

Answer 26

Buddha.

Answer 27

... in his pursuit of happiness in the face of reality, historically reported as having been successful.

Answer 28

I've never heard of any wars started by Buddhists. I know China tried to blame some terror attacks on supposedly radical Tibetan Buddhist monks. I believe The only terror was those Buddhist monks who committed self immolation to draw attention to the injustices of Chinese government towards the Tibetan province and their religion.

Answer 29

There have been some incited by self-righteous latter day Buddhists in SE Asia. Asoka's instituted pacifism in the name of Buddhism is more interesting to me AND i think more rare in the history of theocrats.

Answer 30

My understanding of cynicism is that it's on the other side of pessimism.

Answer 31

I suppose that Occam's razor would prove creationism over evolution.

Answer 32

Optimistic realist.

Answer 33

Original philosophical stances? The Stoics? The Epicureans? The skeptics? The Sophists? Here's the start of your philosophy, it hasn't changed much over the past 2 1/2 millennia.

Answer 34

... but then which best describes your personal philosophy?

Answer 35

Because the universe manifests order, Greek philosophers at times applied ko′smos to the entire visible creation. The use of ko′smos to describe the material creation as a whole appears in some Apocryphal writings (compare Wisdom 9:9; 11:17), these being written during the period when Greek philosophy was making inroads in many Jewish areas, this would be something I could work with, But only as the apostle Paul used it.

The apostle Paul said while addressing the Athenians at the Areopagus, “The *** that made the world [κόσμος ko′smos] and all the things in it, being, as this One is, Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in handmade temples.” (Ac 17:22-24)

Richard C. Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testament (London, 1961, pp. 201, 202), after presenting the philosophic use of ko′smos for the universe, says: “From this signification of κόσμος [ko′smos] as the material universe, . . . followed that of κόσμος as that external framework of things in which man lives and moves, which exists for him and of which he constitutes the moral centre (John xvi. 21; I Cor. xiv. 10; I John iii. 17); . . . and then the men themselves, the sum total of persons living in the world (John i. 29; iv. 42; II Cor. v. 19); and then upon this, and ethically, all not of the ἐκκλησία [ek·kle·si′a; the church or congregation], alienated from the life of *** and by wicked works enemies to Him (I Cor. i. 20, 21; II Cor. vii. 10; Jam. iv. 4).”

Answer 36

Does your answer lie somewhere in all of that? Please know that on ******** i seldom read more than 6 lines, and i pay little heed to scripture from the self-contradictory Bible. Life's too short to sepnd it reading sermons and/or rants.

Answer 37

You ask a question, an answer is provided, and much to your chagrin the answer is too complicated? Why would you post a question on philosophy if you're going to pooh-pooh some of the greatest philosophical debates? 3 lines!

Here's an addendum to my 3 lines, the above is not a sermon, it's an explanation, if you can't grasp the difference, your personal intellection should have met the conceptualization of the commenters introspection.

Answer 38

"... which best describes your personal philosophy?" i haven't disparaged debate any more than you've answered the question. i'm very well versed in philosophy and know egotistical ranting when i read it.

Answer 39

Occam's razor.

Answer 40

Oh I agree that infinity as far as never having a beginning or an *** is **** for a mortal to wrap their thought processes and belief systems around.

Philosophers have tried to get around the apparent design of the universe by arguing that the laws of nature that describe it are necessarily fixed to be what they are. In other words, they would argue, the physics of our universe could not have possibly been different. String theory has shown this claim to be false beyond a reasonable doubt. The landscape indicates that there are plenty of logically possible and mathematically consistent universes besides our own.