• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Name all the Big Questions

azzazza !? said:
don't worry i can see why you thought as such, i was surprised because my other posts around here are usually nothing but digging out paradoxes. meaningless yes, but not without content, to put it in Carnaps words. the essence of meaning is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm the new one here so didn't know. Your last quote is interesting as I was reading a meta-philosophy blog yesterday that explicated very well how saying something is meaningless (as say a nihilist might) is to paradoxically give it meaning.

Also alasdairm gives a lovely list of Aristotelean syllogy-paradoxes, which do you think can be solved by a 'language/meta-language' approach, and which not? and @alasdairm, can you solve Buridan's Bridge paradox as its doing my head in :)
 
^ surely the thing about these kinds of mental hurdles is that they do not have a solution as such and the 'point' (for want of a better term) is simply discussing - or if you are alone, considering - them in the first place.

draw a four-sided triangle.

etc.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
^ surely the thing about these kinds of mental hurdles is that they do not have a solution as such and the 'point' (for want of a better term) is simply discussing - or if you are alone, considering - them in the first place.

draw a four-sided triangle.

etc.

alasdair
Click to expand...

I love paradoxes as much as the next man, but some you gave can and hav been solved. 1 & 2 are hard, and will tie you in knots.
Q3. is simply, A - nothing
Q4 is A:That it is a question that begs no answer, (ie - it is not a substantive question (solved in formal logic by splitting the statement into language and meta-language A: It is the question to this answer.

2.the 'God's limited omnipotence', put formally. Can God cede his powers to someone else.

1. It's too early in the morning for that one, but I'll get back to you:):)

Paradox lulz FTW!!
 
Pythagoras said:
Also alasdairm gives a lovely list of Aristotelean syllogy-paradoxes, which do you think can be solved by a 'language/meta-language' approach, and which not?
Click to expand...

solve them? who would want to destroy such beauty?
though the answer is quite simple. stop talking. you can't solve a paradox within that which creates them. not without destroying that which the paradox created. take away the ground on which they feed. return to self.

Kierkegaard also puts this beautifully in Either/Or.

If you marry, you will regret it ; if you do not marry, you will also regret it ; whether you marry or do not marry, you will regret both . . . Believe a woman, you will regret it; believe her not , you will also regret that ; whether you believe a woman or believe her not , you will regret it . Hang yourself , you will regret it ; do not hang yourself , and you will also regret that ; hang yourself or do not hang yourself , you will regret both . This , gentlemen , is the sum and substance of all philosophy. It is not only at certain moments that I view everything aetero modo, as Spinoza says , but I live constantly aetero modo.

There are many who think that they live thus , because after having done the one or the other, they combine or mediate the opposites [eg. Hegel] . But this is amisunderstanding ; for the true eternity does not lie behind Either/Or but before it . Hence their eterreindeer poop scoopernity will be a painful succession of temporal moments , for they will be consumed by a two-fold regret. My philosophy is at least easy to understand , for I have only one principle , and I do not even proceed from that . . . I do not proceed from any principle ; for if I did I would regret it , and if I did not , I would also regret that . If it seems , therefore , to one or another of my respected hearers that there is anything in what I say, it only proves that he has no talent for philosophy ; if my argument seems to have any forward movement , this also proves the same. But for those who can follow me , although I do not make any progress , I shall now unfold the eternal truth , by virtue of which this philosophy remains within itself , and admits of no higher philosophy. For if I
proceeded from my principle , I should find it impossible to stop; for if I stopped , I should regret it , and if I did not stop , I should also regret that , and so forth. But since I never start , so can I never stop ; my eternal departure is identical with my eternal cessation .
Click to expand...

4. what is the answer to this question?

that question =D
 
Last edited:
Whens dinner ready - the biggest question in terms of the number of times it's been used (citation needed ;) ) - therefore of some importance to the general human race, if not anyone else. :)
 
Just off the top of my head:
1. What is the nature of reality?
2. What is right from wrong or good from evil, and why? Is there right from wrong, and why, etc.?
3. What is existence, and why, how?... Where do we come from, etc.?
4. Does free will exist?
5. What is knowledge? How do we know?
6. What is the primacy of consciousness?
7. Does the supernatural or any divine power exist?
 
toa$t said:
24mcj1gkq7.jpg
Click to expand...

I love that... but yeah, I don't quite understand the C.S. Lewis one either. :\
 
Jeez don't you think you could have included the dinner question - out of good manners if nothing else - bloody intellectuals I dunno ;)
 
^ Well, there is the age-old question of "could God microwave a burrito so hot that even he could not touch it?" ;)
 
^ we both know the answer to that one - stop torturing the others with your deep cunning :)
 
that's an easy one. god don't do that kind of thing. we have never seen god do that type of thing so we have no reason to believe he would either be creating the burrito nor eating it.

well technically i would say god is both creating the burrito and the one being burnt by it when it's too hot. yeah that i like that one. sort of.

maybe he's responsible for creating it but only sort of the one getting burnt by it. yeah that i like that one.

but then he's only sort of responsible for creating it. yeah that i like that one.


i have a question: why aren't we perfect? wouldn't it be better if everyone were perfect?
 
^ you've never seen god do any type of thing tho have you ?So picking out burritos as tho they're not godlike activities is a bit misleading I think - how do you plead?
 
well, it's either a godlike activity like everything is a godlike activity or... like, god don't step outside of the rules of the universe when creating miracles. it didn't materialize the burrito out of nowhere but it may be responsible for creating the burrito depending on how you look at it, you see.

also god don't have a mouth so god isn't eating no burrito. sucks for god.

i have never seen god materializing a burrito. maybe one of these days we will witness this particular miracle.
 
^ Your former hardline asttitude toward god & burritos seems to be softening into a well protected but noticeable "I don't actually know stance" - oui` ?
 
no i think i know.

but this is all based on my witnessing god materialize a burrito.

maybe somebody has seen god materialize a burrito and can prove me wrong. any takers?
 
It's simply a matter of faith in the word of sweet p I have no problem with that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top