letshunt,

I really like your post. Everyone should print it out and frame it.

Amputate- that was a nice post too :-)

mrbling seems extremely wise for his young age.
watch out for this guy. :-)

"Colin, that is SOOO not a country song. You didn't mention mama, prison or a train track once.
"

I still have to grow as an artist. I got a pickup truck in there though!

There you have it. Thank you 17 year old Mr. Bling. You couldnt have illustrated my point any more clearly.

Apparently they didn't teach you the right stuff then, since most of your answers are either wrong or ambiguous.
Just as a sidenote: I'm sure you know more about some things than I do. However, to say you know more about every single subject is just plain ignorance, without a decent foundation (even the languages thing shows that).
Another thing I'd like to point out that I am not calling people idiots for liking music of little quality. Much of the music I listen to merely serves entertainment purposes, nothing more, nothing less. However, to say that music is of high quality is a completely different matter. One who listens to it and enjoys it certainly doesn't have to be an idiot, but one who is under the impression that there is no difference in quality to be found between the mass-produced music that is usually to be found in the top 40 and music which combines experiment, creativity, originality and perfectionism, either is an idiot or doesn't pay much attention.
Is the maker of a cover of some all-time classic song who just copies the melody and puts a generic housebeat under it of equal talent to the maker of the original song? I think not...

Now, for the questions:

The ontological proof: Although there are many ontological proofs of God, there is only one known as "the" ontological proof. That's the one by Anselm. "God is that than which no greater can be conceived. If that than which no greater can be conceived does not exist outside of my understanding, then that than which no greater can be conceived is in fact not that than which no greater can be conceived, because one could also conceive of something like that but existing outside of my understanding."
Obviously, his reasoning is flawed. Also, there are 2 variations of this proof, but I won't go into further detail.

Tertullian basically said that after the bible, there was no more need for philosophy after the bible, and stated philosophy should be destroyed and replaced with belief. (something like "After Christ we desire no subtle theories, no acute inquiries after the gospel" - don't quote this though, not sure if this was the exact wording).
However, the dialectic he used to make his point, his wording and his argumentation, all were great examples of philosophic reasoning. Therefore, he contradicted his own words by using those words.

Smullyan wrote "God is a Taoist". On of the most entertaining texts in the whole of philosophy.

Modern evolutionary ethics actually holds that cultural evolution has caused morality, not genetical evolution.
Personally, I tend to agree. It indeed seems likely when looking at history that the most efficient ethical systems prevail. (kill=>don't kill=>don't kill those of your own family/tribe/country (unless ofcourse they pose a threat), but kill those outside of it when they get in your way)
The idea of an objective moral "good" seems a bit awkward to me, almost like a religion.

Berkeley's (which is indeed pronounced as "Barkley") most well-known theory is indeed immaterialism. However, the question should also have made clear which theory I was talking about, since the whole goal of this theory was to refute scepticism, which it tries to do by creating a very materialistic universe (which, strangely, consists of the thoughts that God gives us) in which we can't deny the existence of anything. He, in fact, is not only an anti-materialist, but at the same time a materialist - just without the matter.
(oh, and no, I did not use notes from a philosophy class. I used memories from a philosophy university study.)

The "hard problem" may be part of the mind-body problem, but they are most certainly not the same. The "hard problem" (called that by David Chalmers) is the problem of the qualia, in other words, the problem of why consciousness not only consists of the normal cognitive functions, but also of phenomenological experience.
It may well be a construct (that is in fact what I believe it to be), however, that statement is pretty empty without an exact explanation of how it works - and giving that explanation is the whole problem.

Karl Popper indeed proved verification to be false, and yes, one can call it a proof:

verification:
A -> B
B
--------
A

"If it's raining, the streets are wet. The streets are wet, so it's raining." That is verification, which is logically incorrect. An important note is that he actually repeated much of what Hume had said already.

The bible => Deuteronomy is the place where that specific passage can be found, which not only said to kill heathens, but also the jews living in the same cities with them.

Kant's categorical imperatives: There are indeed more, but there are 2 he spends most time on and seems to lay most weight on (judging from what he wrote).

You are making a common mistake on the first one. He actually does not say we should universalize actions before doing them and seeing if would like a world in which they were common laws, he says "you should do only those actions that conform to rules that you could will to be adopted universally." Notice the could. He actually is talking about (semi-logical) contradictions, not about personal preferences. E.g. If we adopted the rule "Lying is permissible", people would stop believing eachother, and lying wouldn't work anymore. It's basically a self-defeating rule. At least, that's what he says.
What you stated was not one of Kant's categorical imperatives, but a neo-Kantian one.

The second main formulation is that "we should always see other people not only as goals to an end, but also as ends in themselves".

Now, you say that the Social Contract theory is more acceptable? I beg to differ.
First big problem it faces is that it doesn't allow room for change. A social contract could include slavery. Would that make slavery good? And, would it make it bad to abolish slavery?
The social contract talks about rules as a foundation for ethics. It takes the whole thing backward.
Another problem are those that cannot participate in the social contract. Like animals. Is it morally acceptable to torture and mutilate animals? They aren't part of the social contract, so apparently, you can't say anything about it...
And what about the mentally impaired? Many of those are disabled to an extent which makes it impossible for them to participate in the social contract. So should we just go ahead and torture them?


Now, punk. The punk movement started in the 50's with the surf kids in california who had illegal parties and such (note that I was talking about the punk movement, not the music).


I think I can easily prove I know more on certain subjects than you do. For instance, the dutch language. (and, since you didn't read heidegger and sartre because of their respective languages, I think I can most likely add two more languages to that)
By the way, why would it be cheating? If I raise a subject in a question, and you fail to answer it, that most likely shows you know less about it than me.

oooohh philosophy. interesting.

now what has philosophy contributed to the society during the last 2 decades. my guess: nothing

First of all, Punkworld. I obviously don't think I know more about you than EVERYTHING. The
fact that you take that so seriously as to point out you know Dutch better than me is laughable.

That should have been sign enough you wouldn't understand humor when you saw it.

I think most people that read this board will see that I understood your questions and their answers. I think most people that read this board understood I was joking when I said I knew more than you about anything.

The fact that i stated there were many ontological proofs and discussed one of Descartes' proofs shows I knew what you were asking. Since the questions were philosophy questions, I thought you'd enjoy a little humor when you asked about "God is a Taoist". My answer WAS correct - in a funny sort of way. Again, I think the joke was obvious. You're right about the evolutionary ethics deal. I got that confused. I think I know what you mean now. memes, etc. I do agree with you also.

No, I don't think your question about Berkeley was clear. Maybe it got messed up in your
translation from Dutch since you claim to not be able to handle English well enough for a radio show. Didn't like the BARKLEY joke either? I know. I know. Pretty corny. Probably even
more so to an English as a second language speaker.

You asked "In which part of the Bible" .. you didn't ask which book. You asked which part.
You can't tell when you are being played with. I could just look that up in five seconds. Instead I give "It's in the Torah. Leviticus or Deuteronomy I am nearly sure."

As far as I know, Kant never called them his "main formulations." That is your judgement or
someone elses? Neo-Kantian. How horrible. I think I'll shoot myself therefore I am. Now, you'll probably think I subscribe Cartesian philosophy to Kant.

Don't know about the Social Contract being "more acceptable". Just that I like it more. My sentence starts "I think". That's my very clever way of saying "I think" ... Yeah, and fuck animals! Other than for food and clothing.

"If I raise a subject in a question, and you fail to answer it, that most likely shows you
know less about it than me."

That's horrible logic. Anyone can ask questions someone doesn't know the answer to. That is
quite easy. In a fair contest of knowledge, both people have to answer questions. You're
trying to rig a contest. I also think (haha) any such contest would have to be live to be
fair.

For the record, I agree with Mika. Philosophy is pretty boring for the most part.

Labret,

I think you'd be a fair judge. Would you be so kind as to grade my "paper' while I prepare punkworld's 10 question philosophy exam?

:Graucho sure.

Im not even sure how you got yourself into this mess.

10 Question Quiz for Punkworld:

1. What was Socrates' mom's name?
2. Did Rousseau masturbate?
3. Are rainbows real?
4. Name three philosophers whose works burned in the Library of Alexandria.
5. Are UFOs visiting Earth?
6. Why does Voltaire begin his poem "A Horace" by discussing pussy?
7. Are atoms real?
8. Can we consider the Rolling Stones to be philosophers?
Example:

You can't always get what you want
but if you try sometime
you just might find
you get what you need

9. What is Labret's philosophy of existentialism?
(No cheating)
10. Why are most people bored by philosophy?

Colin, obviously you have missed the entire point I was making.
You said that you "know more than anything than me". Even though this hopefully wasn't meant completely serious (if it was, you'd indeed be a fool), it most certainly showed how you apparently consider yourself superior.
With these questions I merely proved how there are certain fields of knowledge in which you clearly are everything but superior.
Sure you did well... for the average person only interested in philosophy. Please note that these questions were about the easiest I could think of. Any first-year philosophy student would answer them with ease. (Not that there is anything wrong with you not being specialized in philosophy - I most likely know far less about quantum physics than you, or traditional physics for that matter, or math even.)
Apparently you didn't get the language thing either. It's not the fact that I know more about the dutch language than you - which is completely unimportant - but the fact that while I speak your native language "nearly flawless" (in your own words) you don't speak a single word of mine.
The whole thing I'm saying is that if you are going to be saying you are superior, you'd better be able to back it up with superior knowledge on every single front - which, up to date, nobody in history has been able to do.

Anyone can ask questions someone doesn't know the answer to, yes. But when someone can't give a satisfying answer to a question like "what is the EPR-paradox?", one can safely assume that that person knows relatively little about quantum physics.
These were all questions at the same (low) level of knowledge.
Now, if I would have brought Hegel's dialectics up, it would have been a completely different matter.

Note on Kant:
The common consensus in the philosophic world at this moment is that the two mentioned formulations are the "main" ones. Having read his works, I tend to agree.

Note on the social contract:
Something I neglected to mention is that Latour has recently also given quite compelling evidence that the whole view it is based on is flawed.

Note on the bible:
I actually considered the answer you gave as the right one.

Note on the ontological proof:
The fact that you said there are many and that you discussed Descartes shows you know what ontological means and know more than the average person about philosophy, but are not specialized in philosophy (since if you were, you would have immediately known which one I was talking about).

Note on Smullyan:
If something isn't funny, I don't consider it humor. My bad I guess.

"Colin, obviously you have missed the entire point I was making. You said that you "know more than anything than me". Even though this hopefully wasn't meant completely serious (if it was, you'd indeed be a fool), it most certainly showed how you apparently consider yourself superior."

No, you're missing the point, pinkworld. And even more obviously. Remember calling me an idiot and calling my 15 year old sister a "total and complete moron" because of our taste in music?

Yeah, was that you? Yup. Pinkworld the Wandering Philosopher thinks himself superior to others because he listens to punk music. That is a joke. If you think playing barchords at fast speeds is vastly superior to writing 4 part harmonies, good for you! I find it comical.

No, you haven't proven anything because it was so absurd in the first place. Do you really know anyone that thinks themselves superior at every subject in the world? Do you really think I am that one person? Maybe you should have studied psychology instead of philosophy.

You showed an incredible amount of pretentiousness to make such an assertion that someone is an idiot for liking popular music.
I tried to follow up on that pretentiousness with an equal amount of pretentiousness. Did I succeed or fall short?

Great post re proofs. Thanks!

"If you think Eminem and Linkin Park are good, you yourself are also an idiot" - Punkworld

"I am not calling people idiots for liking music of little quality." - Punkworld

Apparently, you have missed all points I was making.
I didn't call your sister an idiot for her taste in music (I hate the beatles myself, like I said before), but for her lack of historical knowledge. The beatles may have been a sucky band, but they most certainly played a large historical role. Besides that, they have also received lots of attention in the media, even in the past few years.
Now, apparently your sister has missed all of that, has missed every single discussion about the Beatles, etc. For that, she would have to have the memory of a goldfish.
Now, like I said before, I also didn't say you were a moron for liking that music, but for thinking it is "good". You see, there is a difference between thinking Linkin Park is nice to listen to, and thinking they are good musicians.

Also, it seems you failed to read what I said about most punk music. I don't consider it of higher quality, merely entertaining.
However, I don't go around saying it's very good music, because most of it is not. (did you entirely miss what I wrote to Labret???)

Basically, it seems you are purposely misinterpreting everything I say... perhaps your ego is hurt because you have been shown not to be the all-superior keeper of all knowledge?

Amputate: Wow, you did a great job of calling me on the fact that I'm not an expert on Mozart's life... and then completely missing my point.

And you're wrong in the most important aspect: There WERE no market studies. Mozart got where he was, in his time, because he was a musical genius. If his music came in our time, he would NOT win an MTV VMA. If you really want to argue my point, explain to me why the bands I've listed play in small clubs while P.O.D. is filling stadiums.

Mika: Philosophy has gotten us nothing? You obviously don't understand philosophy or its history. Philosophy has been the determining factor in the molding of societies, including our own. It's the backbone of civilization. Philosophy should be required in public schools and in universities... it's a shame that people aren't encouraged to think in our society. That's probably why they watch American Idol and listen to Papa Roach. :) (just joking... kind of)

As for the argument that popular things are good because they're popular... well, that's about the most ridiculous argument yet. Do you honestly believe that Jennifer Lopez is a better musician than, for instance, experimental jazz musicians who are constantly innovating new sounds and complex song structures, but whose albums sales never reach more than the thousands? Marketing determines what's popular, and the market studies have shown that the average listener doesn't want to be challenged or forced to think by their music. They want to stay in familiar, safer territory. They want nothing more than a catchy dance beat and uniform pop lyrics.

Look, I'm not on the side of the people arguing that you guys are idiots for listening to pop... that was never my intention. I just want you to admit that the system is flawed... that a lot of great musicians are kept out and forced to work for scraps while complete garbage is allowed to flood the airwaves. Who can possibly deny that simple fact? I'm not saying everything that's not popular is great, and everything that's popular sucks (I like some popular music). My beef is with the system that keeps great musicians from ever having a chance, and forces many of them to give up their recording carreers.

I also didn't say you were a moron for liking that music, but for thinking it is "good".

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

There's that ambiguity of yours creeping up again.
For days, this conversation goes in circles. Punkworld decides what music is "good" aka "higher quality". If you disagree, you are an idiot.

Ego hurt from what? Don't you know I am actually
so flattered by your comment that "Sure you did well... for the average person only interested in philosophy. " that I have printed this post out and gone to the local print shop to get a frame for it? Hopefully, I will see you at a show someday and you can sign it for me.

Hey PW,

When are you going to answer my quiz questions?

you guys dont know what great music is...

David Hasselhof
John Tesh
Snow

you guys all suck

Feel like goin off-topic, when I just return to the original topic :)

Anyway, does this Eminem guy has some kind of anti-violence message? Correct me if I'm wrong, I just got that impression somehow.

I think it's great that when in reality (like it or not) the guy has probably a lot of influence in young people, and still his message is a nice one. It's easy for intellects to say this and that about his music but I cannot see what harm he's doing to anyone - vice versa.

yeah, he is TOTALLY against violence... why do you think his rap single " kumbaya motherfuckers!" was a runaway hit with Jehovas Witnesses?

Mika,

Much of Eminem's lyrics are about his life. He expresses extreme anger at his mother and ex-wife. He raps about almost shooting his wife and then says that would have been the biggest mistake of his life and he is glad he didn't.
He raps about his love for his daughter.

Much of his lyrics are satirical .. in a song called "White America" he writes

So to the parents of America
I am the derringer aimed at little Erica,
to attack her character
The ringleader of this circus of worthless pawns
Sent to lead the march right up to the steps of Congress
And piss on the lawns of the White House and replace it with a Parental Advisory sticker
To spit liquor in the faces of in this democracy of hypocrisy
Fuck you Ms. Cheney!
Fuck you Tipper Gore!
Fuck you with the freest of speech this divided states of embarassment will allow me to have, Fuck you!

and then the next lyrics are:

"I'm just kiddin' America, you know I love you..."

Hehe guess I got the wrong impression then. Thanks for correcting me. Never listened to his lyrics

More Eminem ...

They say music can alter moods and talk to you, well can it load a gun up for you ,
and cock it too?

Well if it can, then the next time you assault a dude, just tell the judge it was my fault
and I'll get sued

See what these kids do is hear about us totin' pistols and they want to get one cuz they think the shit's cool

not knowin' we really just protectin' ourselves
we entertainers
of course the shit's affectin' our sales
you ignoramus

But music is reflection of self,
we just explain it,
and then we get our checks in the mail.
It's fucked up ain't it?

How we can come from practically nothing to being able to have any fuckin' thing that we wanted

That's why we sing for these kids
who don't have a thing except for a dream,
and a fuckin' rap magazine

who post pin-up pictures on they walls all day long,
idolize their favorite rappers and know all they songs

Or for anyone who's ever been through shit in their lives
till they sit and they cry at night wishin' they'd die

Till they throw on a rap record and they sit,
and they vibe.

We're nothin' to you but we're the fuckin' shit in they eyes

that's why we seize the moment try to freeze it and own it
squeeze it and hold it,
cuz we consider these minutes golden
and maybe they'll admit it when we're gone.

So you think mass-produced stuff is of high quality?
You think McDonalds is haute cuisine?
You think Bob Ross is a superior painter?
You think Barbie is a sculpture of high artistic value?
You think The Bridges of Madison County is a literary masterpiece?

While all might have their merits, it is quite obvious that they are entertainment, and not high quality art. You might call me an elitist for saying that and disagree, however, in that case I am proud to be an elitist.

I must admit though that what I said may have been a bit ambiguous. I most certainly have no objections to people liking top 40 music, and in fact believe it is no worse than much punk, metal or any other kind of underground music.
However, it's contemporary entertainment. No more, no less. Not original, creative or of high quality. The lyrics are not profound poetry, but clever marketing. The music is not intricate art, but standardized beats and guitars. It's a mass-product, like the Whopper - certainly not high quality food, but I admit it can be tasty at times.

You sick sonofabitch.

The man was a god damn genius.

Nobody could top that mans happy clouds and sad trees.

you sound very much like a 15 year old talking over your own head.

YOU decide what "quality art" is for others
what is "art"
what makes one piece of art better than another?
is that true for you or a universal fact?

the simple point was made that something is considered good by virtue of the fact that it is popular... hence, some proof that the majority believes that it is good. or the that the belief or opinion or view that typifys those of most people, is that it is good.

Just because your opinion and tastes suck ass... doesnt mean the rest of the planet is wrong. :Kissmy

yo punkworld take that damn quiz. I need answers - questions 8-10 are especially interesting.

"You think Barbie is a sculpture of high artistic value?"

YES! Who the hell doesn't agree with THAT?

About that quiz ... why you avoiding it?

Bob Ross is a sculpture himself. That hair is beautiful, man!

He is too punk rock for that quiz. hehe

If he was punk he would scan a pic of his sharpy marker in his ass and tell you to fuck yourself.

mmm page 4

tastes good

How did you get inside my head and mirror my thoughts exactly? Most top 40 music is just background noise, meant to be catchy and used to sell products once it's been sucked dry in every other market. Here's a perfect example: Even though I actually met the band many years ago, when they were still local and just playing bars, etc. and though they actually are quite a talentec band, if I hear Nickleback's "How you remind me" one more fucking time...

Just another case of a good band doing a bad thing. Sure they made mad cake for their singles, and won all the fluff awards, and good for them that they have the most played song in the History of radio in the United States, but are they familiar with the term "Overexposed"?

better to be overplayed then to not to be played at all.

With your reasoning, you would say

Owning joeschmoeshighqualityporn.com would be better the owning cybererotica.com because its "not as exposed and popular"


Guess what your wrong.
Go suck a pacifer, even a kid like me knows more then you :(

MrBling,

Are you saying you'd rather have millions of dollars than the respect of 500 people in your local town? (gasp) What horrible value you must have. ;-)

What high school are you going to?

Evidently english class was not popular enough for you. But then again, everyone knows the computer geeks were the popular kids in school. No need to learn to speak properly when you have all that mad pr0n bling you made off your warez sites and gallery postings. Right?

Punkworld,

Come on. I answered all your philosophy questions within 30 minutes of waking up yesterday. My quiz has been here on the board all day and night and you just ignore it. What're you afraid of?

10 Question Quiz for Punkworld:

1. What was Socrates' mom's name?
2. Did Rousseau masturbate?
3. Are rainbows real?
4. Name three philosophers whose works burned in the Library of Alexandria.
5. Are UFOs visiting Earth?
6. Why does Voltaire begin his poem "A Horace" by discussing pussy?
7. Are atoms real?
8. Can we consider the Rolling Stones to be philosophers?
Example:

You can't always get what you want
but if you try sometime
you just might find
you get what you need

9. What is Labret's philosophy of existentialism?
(No cheating)
10. Why are most people bored by philosophy?

He's not gonna take it. Why? Because those are not from the book, but they're applied. It's hard when you cannot copy someone's text :)
But interesting questions you got there, anyway.
Would love to see some comments for some of the questions.

punkass??

h-e-l-l-o? punkass?
:uhoh

ok ok ok ok .... Colin is not being fair. lets start with easier questions:

1) your mouse is on the end of the mousepad but you want to continue moving the curser, do you-

a) move your desk in the direction you want to move the cursor
b) move your computer in the direction you want to move the cursor
c) lift your mouse off the pad and move it to the other side.
d) turn your monitor on its side and shake it to move the cursor further
e) none of the above

take your time.
:thumbsup

Maybe pw is dead - I'll give it a try.


1. What was Socrates' mom's name?

ëåîéêü äåí âñÞêå êáìßá ëÝîç

2. Did Rousseau masturbate?

Only from a distance.

3. Are rainbows real?

Rainbow skittles are real.

4. Name three philosophers whose works burned in the Library of Alexandria.

Must have been a couple of Greek guys - maybe Homer, Sophocles and Plautus.

5. Are UFOs visiting Earth?

Yes.

6. Why does Voltaire begin his poem "A Horace" by discussing pussy?

Because Horace was whipped.

7. Are atoms real?

Mrs. Egoyan certainly hopes so.

8. Can we consider the Rolling Stones to be philosophers?
Example:

You can't always get what you want
but if you try sometime
you just might find
you get what you need

Yes.

9. What is Labret's philosophy of existentialism?
(No cheating)

We exist therefore we hate Zionism.

10. Why are most people bored by philosophy?

I dont know, but all of a sudden I feel very tired.