Circles

[eris]

.

The circle is the basis for (creates and is) Reality ( capital R ). The circle holds everything together.

Any set of opposites, or any pair of anything, forms a circle, and in this way, the circle is found in everything.

For example, time is an entity, or a process, consisting of a movement, or an idea from now to then. Now and then are two 'time frames' which create a circle. Any X and Y create a circle.

Also, if everythings a circle, we can expect to succeed and fail one-half of the time - all of us. True and False also take on a new meaning (the opposite is always also true).

Everythings a circle because of one simple fact: the line is always the diameter of some circle.

Any two any things create a circle.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

In Platos "theory of forms" he says that no one has ever seen a perfect circle, or a perfect straight line, yet everyone knows what they are.

The objects that we see, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms. In the allegory of the cave the things we ordinarily perceive in the world are characterized as shadows of the real things, which we do not perceive directly or accuratly.

When we become aware of the shadows and illusions Circles become circles, and circles become Circles.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What is the point of this thread ?

I like circles.

You can make a smiley face out of them.

 

[SophiaGrace]

This thread made me lol

 

[sadface]

i like squares.

 

[edgecrusher]

This thread made me lol

 

[Badjedidude]

I like parallelograms.

I find that most objects in nature represent a parallelogram if you look hard enough.

Same for belly buttons.

No, really. Go look in the mirror.

 

[sadface]

I like parallelograms.

I find that most objects in nature represent a parallelogram if you look hard enough.

Same for belly buttons.

No, really. Go look in the mirror.

i dont have a bellybutton
can someone else verify this for me.

 

[eris]

I like squares, too

This isnt me rambling, BTW, I learned this stuff in college in my philosophy classes.

Its not about finding circles, its about creating them.


Here are some online refferences.

Circular theory

Petitio principii

Platos allegory of the cave

Platos theory of forms



And here are some things that have nothing to do with philosophy or Circular Theory.



how to boil corn on the cob

how rats came to Australia

Is Elmo gay ?

 

[Badjedidude]

I always saw philosophy as a way for bored people to waste a shitload of time talking about absolutely nothing and getting paid for it.

Politics is very nearly in the same career pipeline.

 

[Yukhi]

I used to like ovals. Now I'm into diamonds, clubs, hearts, and clovers.

 

[eris]

I cant talk about quantum mechanics or philosophy with my husband.

I want to talk about science and he starts in with science fiction.

It pisses me off and we end up yelling at each other for 10 minutes.

Anyone want to discuss these things and leave star trek out of it ???

 

[Badjedidude]

PARALLELOGRAM BELLY BUTTON (look hard)

 

[eris]

^ thats the most disturbing thing Ive ever seen, and I watch movies about eating poop and having sex with dead people.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

When pi is an endless number, how on earth can there be a full circle. ?

Thats a good question, eris. Can you explain it further ?

no

eris, youre being contrary.

shut up

__________________________________________________________________

The Cartisian circle, or the flawed philosophy of Descartes, by eris

"I now seem to be able to lay it down as a general rule that whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true."

If you seem committed to claiming both (a) that we can only be sure of our clear and distinct perceptions if God exists and (b) we can know that God exists because we clearly and distinctly perceive the idea of God. If both (a) and (b) are true, Descartes is guilty of circular reasoning.

When someone says 'I am thinking, therefore I am', or 'I exist' he does not deduce existence from thought by means of a syllogism, but recognizes it as something self-evident by a simple intuition of the mind.

If you are not yet certain of the existence of God, and you say that you are not certain of anything, and cannot know anything clearly and distinctly until you have achieved clear and certain knowledge of the existence of God, it follows from this that you do not yet clearly and distinctly know that you are a thinking thing, since, on your own admission, that knowledge depends on the clear knowledge of an existing God; and so you have not proven that you clearly know what you are.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

All this thinking made me hungry.

Anyone have a cookie.

OH NO !!

A COOKIE IS A CIRCLE !!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[Yukhi]

OMG eris I think I only understood around 2% of what you posted xD

Yukhi <--- Not good in physics -_-

 

[eris]

Its not so much physics as it is philosophy, but dont feel bad It took me a long time to be able to understand this stuff properly

La vérité vaut bien qu'on passe quelques années sans la trouver

- Renard

So, im going to continue to talk to myself, and argue with myself, and occasionally call myself filthy names. Buy dont worry, I am not afraid of myself and Im sure I could kick my own ass if it came down to it.

The myth of the cave describes individuals chained deep within the cave. Vision is restricted, and they cannot see one another. The only thing visible is the wall of the cave upon which appear shadows cast by objects that are passed before a brightly burning fire. The shadowy environment of the cave symbolizes for Plato the physical world of appearances.

While we are in the cave everything we see is 1 step from reality.

Here is an example:

People make what they call a "circle" and they see a circle. What people have actually seen are figures that are more or less close approximations of the ideal circle.

For Plato, therefore, the Form "circularity" exists, but not in the physical world of space and time.

It exists as a changeless object in the world of Forms or Ideas, which can be known only by reason.

An object is beautiful to the extent that it participates in the Idea, or Form, of beauty.

Everything in the world of space and time is what it is by virtue of its resemblance to, or participation in, its universal Form. The ability to define the universal term is evidence that one has grasped the Form to which that universal refers.

A beautiful flower, for example, is a copy or imitation of the universal Forms "flowerness" and "beauty."

The physical flower is one step removed from reality, that is, the Forms.

A picture of the flower is, therefore, is two steps removed from reality.

you dig ?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ok class, what have we learned today ?

Yes, Eris, what is the answer.

uhhhh....flowers are pretty ????

You are very correct. You earned your cookie.

 

[Badjedidude]

OMG eris I think I only understood around 2% of what you posted xD

Philosophy doesn't take understanding.

It only requires an abandonment of common acquired thought processes and enough time/energy to come up with an explanation for whatever particular point you're interested in making, whether it be for entertainment or for deeper reasons having to do with personality and psychology. It's simply a way to profess whatever you say as knowledge without having to actually prove it as coherent, concrete truth.

lol

 

[eris]

Thats not true.

If you tell me youve studied philosophy to the extent that I have Ill take that seriously, but until then I think youre just generalizing about things you really dont understand.

Philosophy classes are not teachers talking about their ideas, they are TEACHING ideas that have been understood and studied for sometimes thousands of years.

Just because you dont understand something does not mean it cannot be understood.

I dont know what you think Philosophy is, but its not people sitting around talking about their ideas.

Many aspects of philosophy are PROVING truths, like Logic and Ethics.

Here is a really really really easy-to-understand example of what I mean.

Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Major premise: All mortals die.
Minor premise: All men are mortals.
Conclusion: All men die.

Therefore, Socrates will die.

 

[Yukhi]

Uh oh eris, your example actually made me remember my philosophy class I had in 1st year college. That was the only class where I skipped one session xD The teacher was boring. The examples in the workbook were funny though

 

[eris]

yeah, thats a philosophy 101 example of logic

those same steps can be taken to prove really complicated things, too

and YES I KNOW IM TALKING MOSTLY TO MYSELF in here

I just want to think about these things, and I can reason with myself in here.

Im not going to make any other threads and people can just ignore it

____________________________________________________

Ethics, in philosophy, is not the standard definition: ie, morals or values.

The term 'philosophical ethics' to refer to the project of integrating metaethics and normative ethics in a systematic way, trying to gain insight into what is valuable and obligatory (normatively) by understanding what value and obligation are (metaethically). Many of the issues are based on determining free will.

There are many systems of Ethics, Im going to talk (to myself) about some of them.

Utilitarianism

The utilitarian ethical theory is founded on the ability to predict the consequences of an action. To a utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the choice that is ethically correct. One benefit of this ethical theory is that the utilitarian can compare similar predicted solutions and use a point system to determine which choice is more beneficial for more people. This point system provides a logical and rationale argument for each decision and allows a person to use it on a case-by-case context

I (and many other people ) think this is WAY FLAWED !!!

Here is an example:

A woman gets -10 points for being raped by 10 people.

Each rapist gets +2 points for enjoying it.

That means she should be raped because the +20 outweighs her -10.

THAT IS ABSURD.

So, moving on.

Moral Absolutism

The first, and perhaps most common, response to such disagreements is to claim that there is a single, ultimate answer to the questions being posed. This is the answer of the absolutists, those who believe there is a single Truth with a capital “T.” Usually, absolutists claim to know what that truth is–and it usually corresponds, not surprisingly, to their own position.

I obviously dont think that there is any single truth to anything, so lets keep going...

Moral Relativism

The other common response to such disagreement effectively denies that there is a truth in this area, even with a lower case “t.” Moral relativists maintain that moral disagreements stem from the fact that what is right for one is not necessarily right for another. Morality is like beauty, they claim, purely relative to the beholder. There is no ultimate standard in terms of which perspectives can be judged. No one is wrong; everyone is right within his or her own sphere.

Now were cooking with gas !!!!!!!!!!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now onto my personal hero, Kant.

Kant wanted to avoid saying duty was simply a matter of “following orders.” Instead, he saw duty as emanating from the nature of reason itself. And because reason is universal, duty is also universal. Kant suggested an important test whether our understanding of duty was rational in any particular instance. We always act, he maintained, with a subjective rule or maxim that guides our decision. Is this maxim one that we can will that everyone accept, or is it one that fails this test of universalizability?

Consider cheating. If you cheat on an exam, it’s like lying: you are saying something is your work when it is not. Imagine you cheat on all the exams in a course and finish with an average of 98%. The professor then gives you a grade of “D.” You storm into the professor’s office, demanding an explanation. The professor calmly says, “Oh, I lied on the grade sheet.” Your natural reply would be: “But you can’t lie about my grade!” Kant’s point is that, by cheating, you’ve denied the validity of your own claim. You’ve implicitly said that it is morally all right for people to lie. But of course you don’t believe it’s permissible for your professor to lie–only for you yourself to do so. This, Kant says, fails the test of universalizability.

ok, thats enough about silly ethics.

Next, if there is, indeed, a next, I will touch on Kants Supersentance

OH NO !!!!

WHAT IS A SUPERSENTANCE !?!?!?!?!?!?!

Should I be afraid ?

Yes, very afraid.

 

[Badjedidude]

Thats not true.

If you tell me youve studied philosophy to the extent that I have Ill take that seriously, but until then I think youre just generalizing about things you really dont understand.

Actually, it IS TRUE, because it's my personal opinion of the matter.

I have taken a few philosophy classes in college, and while I obviously don't have the interest in it that you show, I still consider it to be mostly just a field in which people can talk about nothing endlessly.

Seriously... as far as I understand it, there really aren't any "truths" in philosophy that can't be argued against successfully. Indeed, many philosophers (that I've seen) only spend their time searching for ways to prove each other wrong and assert their own views as truth using vague, easily manipulated (and to laymen, entirely incomprehensible) logic.

I wasn't insulting you or your interests, I was just giving my personal opinion.

 

[Just_Some_Dude]

what i see most repeating in nature is "the orbit"