you guys are just confused by the difference between an object itself and an object as we understand or comprehend it. the word for both things is the same.
the objects as we understand or comprehend is the same word because we call what we see that resembles what we understand it to be. match it up like Plato's waxen block in his theaetetus
but the argument is who are we to judge an object as object x, as an object at all
the question we really should be asking is whether chess, ethically, is worth playing, or if we should be really doing something more 'useful' with our time.
personally this question is the relevant one here.... enough bs about blah blah blah nenenenn
whether we should be posting on this thread rather than spending time with our loved ones, so to speak.
personally i think yes (otherwise i wouldn't be here!)
we have a choice. all start out, after Hatty-Freeham's renunication, to obey the (kantian) law, to sign a contract or then rip it up to obey one's natural desires. going back to Hatty's question of literature, the characters fall in this manner, from law to contract to self-love. its good to post of its enjoyable. at the very least, as socrates says in his meno, it makes us "better and braver men"
No, chess is an illusion and figment of the mind. In fact, I am too.
again..as i mentioned before. knowledge isnt about truth its about utility. if you care that your eyes seem to see something then you can use that information. if you dont then fine. (you probably wont live long but its not a violation of logic to simply not care)
exactly, and im saying what you are who cares about we cant know for sure logically? look, i can see it, so whatever, i gotta do what i gotta do. okay i cant prove it. but that just humbles me, it doesnt stop me.
No, chess is an illusion and figment of the mind. In fact, I am too.
but if the mind exists and the mind is in the space of the world, then whatever is in the space of the world exists and thus chess does????
I think that there is more to life then utility. I would like to know how the universe works even if that knowledge does not reward me with a fabrige egg or designer jeans.
look, from law, to contract, to phallus, thats all you gotta know in life
peace
So you have no curiosity? All you want from life is to be warm and safe? You have no interest in knowing why we are in such a bizzare place called reality?
So you have no curiosity? All you want from life is to be warm and safe? You have no interest in knowing why we are in such a bizzare place called reality?
I agree. I wanted to know with this thread whether chess exists, not whether we should be playing it regardless of illusion or reality.
also, TA i don't have any idea what you mean by phallus. are you saying we should act according to innate desires, regardless of men or women. Sounds like going from philosophy to literature to poetry...... please elaborate on your theory
but first answer my question whether chess exists, then maybe you can talk about your ethical system
you guys are just confused by the difference between an object itself and an object as we understand or comprehend it. the word for both things is the same.
So, any given word means one thing in the classroom, when we're discussing philosophy, and something else in the real world. I think I'm beginning to understand.
This is starting to feel dangerous. I'm leaving before I get any closer to the edge. I'm untracking, therefore I am not.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Oh yeah! Feel'in right at home!
look, whether this world exists or not, its the one we're in and we got to make the best of it.
therefore i disagree with aristotle's metaphysics is the first science, our divine creator would be jealous neener nenner nener because instead of wondering whether it exists figure out how to deal with it ethically.
whether chess exists or yet, ethics still holds because we want to be powerful and contened, thats clear.