Applicable Philosophy

[Godwyn]

Gravity is universal But as far as philosophical universality, I will grab a line from the american Constitution and say, "Pursuit of Happiness," and whatever convoluted passageways of thought and deed that the pursuit carries our strange selves.

[Excel Zero]

[Godwyn]

[Excel Zero]

And that is why I think debate is worthless....there is way too much individuality and free thought. To some we never really die and too some it's over when it's over. That's why I say it's impossible to put rules and defenition on abstract argument if you truely want an open debate.

End of line

Excel

[Khymerion]

The problem of adding gravity in as a natural law is that it starts to fall apart on certain levels, mainly the micro and the macro scale. What the common man perceives as the laws of gravity just does not seem to work the way that we want them to when you try to create a 'universal' law for it. That is the problem with 'natural' laws and this is a product of our 'hard' sciences... going into the 'softer' topics such a philosophy makes the world a much more confusing place... especially debates.

I will avoid the god debate because it makes a few too many assumptions and leaps of faith. Those arguments rapidly devolve into trying to give certain traits to the creator and this gets even more confusing when you get different religious viewpoints... as is usual when you get the typical christian theologen in the same room of someone who follows one of the other non-middle eastern based religions, normally one of the eastern religions or one of the pagan northern european relgions and then sparks really fly... especially if one is a catholic who would love the return of the inquizition.

So, marking out the religions that we gain most of what we think are our morals from and the pseudo-sciences that usually end up having to give attributes to mysterious entities or substances that sound too much like magic or god, who we are avoiding anyway, it narrows down the philosophy debate to pretty much society. Again, we are faces with the problem of morals.

Depending on your outlook and which philosophical position you take, even one of the most terrible acts to commit in the minds of most people starts to creep in towards the forefront as a possibly acceptable action. Equality and fairness can be pushed to the side if you beleive in certain viewpoints put forth by Nietzche and the like if it is committed to move the person in question to a better position but that is a VERY simplistic answere to something as complex as Nietzche. But what do I know... ^_^

I think what I am trying to come to a point here is that the very open topic of applicable philosophy only can be useful to us if you can give us a slightly more focused topic. But then agian, I am more well versed in hard sciences than I am in philosophy... so, you can ignore me if you would like... ^_^ It's everyones right to.

[Godwyn]

Gravity doesn't fall apart, it falls together . While it is true that the gravitational effects on atoms and other small particles are inexplicable by our current science, I think it is merely because the science is flawed, not gravities fault

I think the best reason to avoid the God debate, other than the assumptions any religion first has to make to have a case to argue, is to avoid retribution from the true power of Mod .

Society is the easiest for debate, as long as the debate sticks to classic debating principles, but there is no need if we seek to justify the human society based on pure principals of thought, as Mill, Kant, as well as Plato have tried to explain. As said by Mill "A test of right and wrong must be the means, one would think, of ascertaining what is right or wrong, and not a consequence of already having ascertained it."

And, to agree with my earlier point that a universal principle is the pursuit of happiness, Mill states that "[. . .] actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."(Utilitarianism)
A similar sentiment attributed to the functioning of society was put forth by Plato nearly 2000 years before in The Republic"[. . .]Then Just is happy and Unjust miserable? So be it. But happiness and not misery is profitable. Then[...] injustice can never be more profitable than justice"

This, for many reasons, mostly distractions, took entirely too long so I will have to finish it another time

[Excel Zero]

The Mods aren't here to quash opinions Godwyn...we just want to keep it clean ya know? Thus far I think this is going alright.

Now lemme jump on in here as you've mentioned theoretical physics. I whole-heartedly agree that science is flawed. I think this is true mainly because we lack the energy involved. Alot of physicists believe the energy required is far beyond the next several generations at least. I have suc a hard time with this for one reason.

On one hand we have my love for science and physics and the need for knowledge.

On the other hand we have my insane desire to keep things simple.

There in lies my problem. I would love to learn how gravity works, but the other half of me says...hey it works...let's move on now.

I'm wondering, do you think we will ever really find out why it works??

I think questions like that is where physics stops and philosophy starts. To me they are almost the same. If you ask the following question, you can get answers from both fields.

Question: Will we be able to figure out why gravity works in our lifetime?

Bear in mind these are not my answers, just ideas to prove a point

The possible physics answers.

Yes we will. We are already on the fast track to the true answer.
No we won't. We wouldn't be able to conjure up the power neccessary.

The possible philosophical answers.

Yes we will. The human mind is far more complex than gravity, a theory will arise that will bring out the true answer.
No we won't. We don't have a mind complex enough to picture the dimensions beyond the third and fourth.

If ya look at the two possibilities in each category, they sorta look alike.

Still at this time my mind wants to keep it simple, thought I must admit my brain loves the adult stimulation.

End of line

Excel

[Graillik Tur]

Jesus....I hate being gone for long periods of time. This must be what the teacher feels like when he comes back after the substitute.

And I see that the PHRASE RELIGION has been tossed around again in the theology sense of the word. If you would please remove the term "RELIGION" and replace it with "THEOLOGY" from now on when referring to "A GOD OR SUPREME BEING". This has a few reasons. 1. Religions encompass far more than Diesitic thoughts but many things. 2. Religion is a horribly touching thing by it's word, not necessarily by it's presence. 3. I HATE it when religion is drug through the mud because of anything, specifically because your aiming at the philosophies that I adhere to, and 'religion' has killed it's PR image, and that suxors. Just be concious of this and replace the words as they come up, Thank you.

Ming...Ethics is a specific study of philosophy. That is why I tried to keep it out thus far, because now as we can see we are bringing in Theology, Free thought, we've touched on debate, which we will keep out, that is what the debate board is for. UM....abstract thought, scientific application as far as philosophy is concerned....now you see why I opened the universal idea board. And it is also why I posted the original question. As we can all see, philosopy encompasses all of thought....to the last corner. Universal Rule, everyone must think atleast once. Universal Law, Everyone must Die on the mortal coil, or everyone's body must decompose or be removed from the reality of Earth. This is the other part of philosophy, you have to have the words and ideas to express to others. Continue. But be prepared for a topic switch, cause I think you can all see this is about to hit the circle loop of empass unless someone comes up with a ground breaking idea.

Please keep lesson one and two of The Debate Posts in mind.

"Lesson 1. Keep your emotion at the door." "Lesson 2. In order for a mutual exchange to occur between 2 parties, both parties must except that they are perhaps wrong, and that there is no specific right in thought."

Salut.