Impotence of human thought

About human thought and knowledge. So we have the word knowledge. A construction made by human thought, we decide what it means. Of course we can achieve it in term we have made up ourselves, with the pure definition of the word. But what we really know, when it comes down to it, is the content of our lives. That is the only true knowledge we will ever have..until we die. Because what we experience while in this life, as a physical human being, is all filtered through our perception and its ability to create various explanations of the subject at hand.
But that can be knowledge too, it's just a matter of definition, or should I say perception.
 
Ok, if you find it to be true that Contradictions exist, realizing/admiting that is enlightenment, and denying it is ignorance, then you must also agree that Contradiction can not exist, that realizing/admiting that is enlightenment, and denying it is ignorance.
 
What's to think about? It's contradiction pure and simple, to beleive one idea is to realize that it's opposite is false, just a little exersize to point out why Glacial Imprint's little ideas about 'merging duality' are a bunch of crap :p
 
LOL. Excellent point Mystech! BTW Glacial, if you're even still hanging around, Mystech has just given you a little paradoxical puzzle for you to solve!

Yes and No et al are not inherent contradictions. They can only contradict each other if used together, internally...for example
Q: Does 2+2=4?
A: No, it does. <-- contradiction
A: Yes, it doesn't. <------

Another example: "married man" and "bachelor" are not contradictions, they are opposites. However, they can create an internal contradiction:
"That bachelor is a married man."

A contradiction is when A is given property B, where B's property is ~A.
 
Or in proper sylogistic terms a contradiction is when you hold the following statement to be true:

p=q -> p~q

(p equals q, therefor, p does not equal q)

So do us all a favor, Glacial, and mind your 'p's and 'q's :D Man, I've been waiting to use that one for so long! haha.
 
Um... alright... first, let's clear something up. Quantuum theory actually came into existance _after_ Einsteinian relatavistic physics. And, in fact, Einstein himself decried the emerging scientific field with the famous (mis)quote 'I refuse to live in a universe where God plays dice'. He most certainly did _not_ support it. And while technically, according Quantum physics, since all laws of reality are actually just 'extremely high probabilities', until an event is in the past, it cannot be said to be one thing or another, and in some level, is _all_ things that it possibly could be, until movement along the time 'dimension' locks it into existance as a past event. But at this point I've moved beyond my ability to defend my argument, so let's move on.

As for Glacial, if you sift through the... interesting... theories he spouts, there _are_ certain things that can be gleaned from them. He's taking snippets from a number of different 'neo' non-Christian religions, and turning them into a mishmash of phrases without the articulation to truely explain them. But, I do have to agree with him in one thing. Paradoxes, things that are both 'a thing' and 'not a thing' are part of the very fabric of the world. To deny that fact is to cordon oneself into a Platonic world where either a thing is, or it isn't. For example, let's say you've had... four beers. Are you drunk? Depending on the flavorings you give the word, you are both 'drunk' and 'not drunk' at the same time. You're certainly not entirely sober, the 'opposite' of drunk, and therefor must be drunk. But on the other hand, you're not stumbling over yourself, puking and losing time (Unless you're one hell of a lightweight). So no, you're 'not drunk'.

Platonic logical philosophy is great in theory, but when you move out into the fullness of the world, it tends to fall apart when put into direct application. Can we not then at least assume that the same lack of applicability would also apply to the realm of philisophical paradoxes?
 
Edit: Ok, mayhap it's not best to post a reply to a post like this while breaking up with your boyfriend online >.< I retract everthing I wrote here on the grounds that it would probably get me kicked off the board.

Don't worry, though, I'll find time soon to school you in just what a pathetic simpleton you really are.
 
Last edited:
Ok, the problem with the drunk example is that the term itself is too vague to really alow for contradiction, short of going to the polar opposite of having someone who's both drunk, and sober simultaneously.

The term Drunk doesn't inherently imply any definative specifications for when someone seases to be sober and becomes drunk, it's kind of vague and out there, and that's perfectly fine, it's just a term we invented to classify a general condition, not to run a railroad on. It's doesn't have a solid enough foundation in objective reality, it's flexable and amorphous, so of course it will end up becomeing something of a matter of opinion, this is NOT a contradiction, just a linguistic quirk. If one were to say that someone is both Legaly drunk (that being a definative state, as it's determined by measuring someone's blood alcohol level, and if it's beyond a certain point, the person is drunk, if it's below he's not. . . though perhaps a bit tipsy, but that's not a legaly sanctioned condition) one could not say that someone is both sober, and legaly drunk at the same time, THAT is a contradiction, your example, however is not.

Do note, for future challenges of my claims, that I am aware that varrying view points may be held by different people, pointing this out really doesn't amount to much, and just wastes your time and mine.
 
possible?

I found out some Chinese herb. The name is SATIBO.
I think it has new product now.... http://www.satibo.jp/

Do u believe this kind medicine?

pic_fukugen_02_s_clear.gif
 
this is the most retarded battle of semantics ever...im going to save this thread so future generations can learn from your mistakes.
 
Mystech said:
Do you think that man can really know anything? Maybe it's just his arrogance that lets him think he can have true knowledge.

me::yeah..i know i'm a bit late respondin)
well there is knowldge and insight and wisdom. man may very well know how big the universe is to te cubit metre, but does sHe know how to dance in it?

Do you think that he can actually achieve anything that matters?

me::what matters is understanding Nature's Intellignce. only that. cause we are Nature/ sure we cn make tinhs easier, like wate from taps, Internet communication etc. but if we trash Nature doing te techno trip that is destroyng our very home and us

Maybe it’s all just an illusion, and nothing at all is real anyway, in which case we’re all looking pretty stupid to the divine, aren’t we?

me::eek:ne of the most absurd, ignore-ant, and insidious myths creeated by man is that Nature is illusion, and their ideas are real!.....when right in front of teir eyes IS what is and can only be real

Certainly if anything can be known or done, it’s not by us, we’re forever in debt, and below the divine. Life is suffering.
Click to expand...
only if yo posit a 'divine' ...another daft idea when it is put 'up there'.....in anceint Greece with the Orphic mystery school dogma, te 'divine' was said to be trapped in the body and Nature, and also tat it is 'up there'.....so as soon as you abstract a divine apart, thats as bad and on par wid tinking that very Nature is illusion or 'Maya'....tell that to te friggin car that runs you over.......best to look left and right!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top