Author Topic: Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?  (Read 2502 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 625
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
« Reply #29 on: September 17, 2012, 05:08:21 AM »
^^^^
What other society exists?
The society that exists between two human beings like you and I.
Society is the cumulative assembly of relationships between networked individuals. (my definition)(totally meaninglessness , I know).

Each individual A will have many different relationships with another individual B.

For example.

At home my wife is the boss, she sorts out the duties for everybody. I get to do the garbage, the lawn, and a long list of unspecified things.
In this instance I am the subordinate and she is the superior.

When it comes to managing our overall finances I am superior and she is the  subordinate.

At the same time we make all 'big' decisions jointly and there is no superior and subordinate.

When you have a society with more then two people there are going to be times when you need a third person in order to resolve a dispute.

And in the narrow confines of the details of that dispute that third person is 'superior' to the other two 'subordinates'. This is because this third person has made the decision which overrules the thinking of the other two.
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2012, 05:14:26 AM »
^^^^
What other society exists?
The society that exists between two human beings like you and I.
Society is the cumulative assembly of relationships between networked individuals. (my definition)(totally meaninglessness , I know).

Each individual A will have many different relationships with another individual B.

For example.

At home my wife is the boss, she sorts out the duties for everybody. I get to do the garbage, the lawn, and a long list of unspecified things.
In this instance I am the subordinate and she is the superior.

When it comes to managing our overall finances I am superior and she is the  subordinate.

At the same time we make all 'big' decisions jointly and there is no superior and subordinate.

When you have a society with more then two people there are going to be times when you need a third person in order to resolve a dispute.

And in the narrow confines of the details of that dispute that third person is 'superior' to the other two 'subordinates'. This is because this third person has made the decision which overrules the thinking of the other two.
From what you have written it appears you can't get along with anyone because you don't treat people with respect.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2012, 05:15:17 AM »
And without religion, we'd still be living in the jungle with our primate cousins.

What's the reasoning behind that statement?

You'd prefer to live in the jungle?  :)

If my choices were "live in the jungle" or "live with atrocities", I'd choose the jungle.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 625
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
« Reply #32 on: September 17, 2012, 05:41:51 AM »
^^^^
What other society exists?
The society that exists between two human beings like you and I.
Society is the cumulative assembly of relationships between networked individuals. (my definition)(totally meaninglessness , I know).

Each individual A will have many different relationships with another individual B.

For example.

At home my wife is the boss, she sorts out the duties for everybody. I get to do the garbage, the lawn, and a long list of unspecified things.
In this instance I am the subordinate and she is the superior.

When it comes to managing our overall finances I am superior and she is the  subordinate.

At the same time we make all 'big' decisions jointly and there is no superior and subordinate.

When you have a society with more then two people there are going to be times when you need a third person in order to resolve a dispute.

And in the narrow confines of the details of that dispute that third person is 'superior' to the other two 'subordinates'. This is because this third person has made the decision which overrules the thinking of the other two.
From what you have written it appears you can't get along with anyone because you don't treat people with respect.
I am sorry that the point I tried to make seems to be completely lost (by you at least). My bad.

I was trying to take out any emotional context in the use of 'superior' and 'subordinate' and also to point that in most relationships between individuals there are many strands and layers.

I am disappointed that you did not address the viewpoint I was making and decided, instead,  to express your thoughts on my personality which you gaged from a few lines of my posts.
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
« Reply #33 on: September 17, 2012, 05:50:30 AM »
^^^^
What other society exists?
The society that exists between two human beings like you and I.
Society is the cumulative assembly of relationships between networked individuals. (my definition)(totally meaninglessness , I know).

Each individual A will have many different relationships with another individual B.

For example.

At home my wife is the boss, she sorts out the duties for everybody. I get to do the garbage, the lawn, and a long list of unspecified things.
In this instance I am the subordinate and she is the superior.

When it comes to managing our overall finances I am superior and she is the  subordinate.

At the same time we make all 'big' decisions jointly and there is no superior and subordinate.

When you have a society with more then two people there are going to be times when you need a third person in order to resolve a dispute.

And in the narrow confines of the details of that dispute that third person is 'superior' to the other two 'subordinates'. This is because this third person has made the decision which overrules the thinking of the other two.
From what you have written it appears you can't get along with anyone because you don't treat people with respect.
I am sorry that the point I tried to make seems to be completely lost (by you at least). My bad.

I was trying to take out any emotional context in the use of 'superior' and 'subordinate' and also to point that in most relationships between individuals there are many strands and layers.

I am disappointed that you did not address the viewpoint I was making and decided, instead,  to express your thoughts on my personality which you gaged from a few lines of my posts.
Why should I care about your emotions?

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
« Reply #34 on: September 17, 2012, 08:37:41 PM »
I ask because I find it difficult to believe that our technological development was based on a belief in the supernatural rather than reason, observation of the natural world and practical experimentation.
That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying that religion was functional and adaptive for thirty thousand years before science and technology evolved from that foundation.

But given that the technological advances of the last two hundred years are effectively destroying the planet, perhaps we should have stuck with religion.

Stupid monkeys.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
« Reply #35 on: September 17, 2012, 08:42:55 PM »
I ask because I find it difficult to believe that our technological development was based on a belief in the supernatural rather than reason, observation of the natural world and practical experimentation.
That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying that religion was functional and adaptive for thirty thousand years before science and technology evolved from that foundation.

But given that the technological advances of the last two hundred years are effectively destroying the planet, perhaps we should have stuck with religion.

Stupid monkeys.
you maybe, but for me I definitely disagree. I am a human being what are you?

Offline Gohavesomefun

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Darwins +4/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
« Reply #36 on: September 18, 2012, 06:38:21 PM »
I didn't realise religion was enviromently friendly...

Anyway, to answer OP's question; Science can and probably will. Philosphy has never provided any specific answer to any factual problem.
Quote
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. ”
A. Einstein

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2012, 01:39:26 PM »
And without religion, we'd still be living in the jungle with our primate cousins.
What's the reasoning behind that statement?
The ubiquity of religion in human history indicates that it was evolutionarily adaptive, and possibly necessary for neolithic societies to survive.   

Quote
If my choices were "live in the jungle" or "live with atrocities", I'd choose the jungle.
Lots of atrocities in the jungle, OAA. 

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2012, 01:40:38 PM »
Lots of atrocities in the jungle, OOA. 

I used "or"; not "and/or". There's a reason for that.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2012, 03:42:38 PM »
And my point was that your two options aren't mutually exclusive.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?
« Reply #40 on: October 27, 2012, 03:53:17 PM »
And my point was that your two options aren't mutually exclusive.
there is only one escape from the jungle, death.