QUOTE (KOTJE+Jun 8 2005, 06:34 PM)
A philosopher (I have forgotten the name) once said: " When one reason there can't be anythink (the first cause ...), but when we look around us there are all these thinks".
That's a sort of paradox.
What do you think of that. Please no God, with God we can explain everythink.
QUOTE
" When one reason there can't be anythink (the first cause ...), but when we look around us there are all these thinks".
I'm not sure if I understand here. Do you mean, "With one reason there can't be anything, but when we look around there all all these things." Or do you mean "thinks" as in thinking?
KOTJE
8th June 2005 - 08:38 PM
Dear Javatool I mean when I think about it, when I made up my mind about it.
JavaTool
8th June 2005 - 09:53 PM
"When I think about something, I've already made up my mind about it?" Yes?
KOTJE
9th June 2005 - 04:48 AM
Javatool just think of the origin of everythink you see, than one moment you will see there can't be anythink. I'is not so easy.
Guest
9th June 2005 - 12:18 PM
Learn to speak english, KOTJE. Seriously.
Think = brain work, thinking, inventing things
Thing = something, an object etc.
Now, from the beginning please. In philosophy everything can get dodgy, if even a single concept is unclear.
Pat
9th June 2005 - 12:49 PM
Hi guys....you may like this....I found it in a book.... "restraining the imagination, not permitting it to dwell overmuch".........."if we either tire ourselves or puzzle ourselves, it is our own fault."
There is lots more, wrote by some of the very wise men from the beginning of time till now.
JavaTool
21st June 2005 - 03:21 AM
QUOTE (KOTJE+Jun 9 2005, 04:48 AM)
Javatool just think of the origin of everythink you see, than one moment you will see there can't be anythink. I'is not so easy.
Oh, I think I finally understand what you were saying! Is it basically the chicken and the egg problem? Philosophy has a problem trying to explain origins e.g. the origin of language. Wittgenstein said something like "language can't be explained by language" but I don't really agree. I personally think the problem is simply that we're using deduction to explain a phenomena that likely had multiple causes - the right one(s) could only be proven by empirical evidence. Likewise for other things, like the beginning of the universe.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.