Entertainment : Battle for the Last Post!

They are on the list yeah.

What have you done with the others?  

Guys like that are never safe

Like coffee flavored ice cubes and schnitzel night, safety is over rated.

BRUNO MARS in the Superbowl halftime show!!! 

I feel like a little girl growing up in a patriarchal society and forced to play with barbies and little baby dolls all in the hopes of making me want to become a mother as soon as any man shows interest in me. 

So much fun.

I think I'll have some.

I have no idea what you mean there.

No one is perfect.

I think we call that flawed.

Or we could stop trying to define people and accept them as they are. Accept them as intentional agents in a world in which both are inhabitants. A person is not flawed or perfect, they just are. We create the terms flawed and perfect to justify treating them like objects; treating them as other. 

I'm a philosophy and English major. I would say there is good and bad, right and wrong. But there is no truth. At least in continental philosophy, in analytical philosophy everything gets less abstract. Well, at least it tries to.

If you're starting with existentialism you are going to have a really steep learning curve. I spent 18 months with Ancient Greek, Moderns, and contemporary before I started getting into it. And only just recently is it beginning to make sense. 

We are born into a world that is not of our making. We are, as children, shaped by the world around us. We only become products of that which we have been exposed to. Based on what we have been exposed to, we create the world (our intellectual mind). So we have our physical bodies which are a part of the material world, and we have our intellectual minds, which is based on the material world but able to create things much more abstractly. With this abstraction we can think of a perfect circle, squares, an omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god, love, hate, beauty. These things do not exist in the material world, but based on our experience we can abstract this understanding. But it is important to remember that they are only creations of our intellectual minds. They do not in truth exist. We place value on these abstractions. Some people go to the point of believing these abstraction so completely they are willing to sacrifice their physical bodies for them. We call these people ascetics. You see this in priests who whip their bodies because they believe it will bring them closer to death, which in turn will bring them closer to god (just an example, scientists do this as well). And so on and so forth, there is lots  and lots and lots more. But this is all based in continental philosophy

Analytic philosophy deals more with the sciences and is deeply rooted in logic, definitions, and attempting to discover truth. I like to think that continental philosophy deals more with abstracts like psychology and aestheticism, and analytic deals with logic and science like physics and law. 

So that is a fraction of a nut shell of an answer. The best people I have found for existentialism would be Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, and DeBeauvoir. For analytic philosophy you might as well just start reading, most philosophers deal with this field. I don't. I love continental, also known as historical philosophy.

Choking works too, but you gotta be gentle about it. No one wants to go to work with hand prints around their throat. It just leads to odd looks. Mostly of envy.

By positing one claim does not mean I automatically affirm it's opposite. 

At what point in time did I say it way MY view on the world? 

It is a paradox in the work, but that doesn't negate the importance of the work.

But if you want a better answer about Nietzsche's Truth Paradox, here you go.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/...

Someone's been reading the Tao te Ching, however you spell it.

Here's a fun one- does God's existence necessitate the devil's?

bah you avoid!  predicating on the "if" that god exists, does his existence then necessitate the devil, humans being around or not?

1. Balance is bullshit; indeed, there is no absolute, eternal, universal condition which prevents overall lopsidedness.
2. Opposites are not always codependent; indeed, often what people consider to be opposites are not in true opposition. 
3. It might simply be easier to imagine a general symmetry than a universe without relativity; indeed, the latter might be impossible (for a person to imagine "realistically").
4. 1 & 3 are related, as are 2 & 3, as are 1 & 2, but 4 simply wouldn't mean much without 1, 2 & 3; indeed, one might call it nonsense, or at least pointlessly abstract.

@Dwayne - your exactly right, there is no fairness in anything other than some peoples minds about how things should be, not how they are.  I was trying to be funny and have a dig at religion at the same time, tis all.  

Guess I'm just wild and crazy like that.

We've decided that loving God and our fellow man doesn't mean taking any more of your lip.

We've decided that loving God and our fellow man
doesn't mean taking any more of your lip.

http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/keep-calm-and-judo-chop-everything/

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.” -- Carl Sagan

I think if a person believes in god there can be no conversation with that person. They refuse to recognize any evidence that goes against their belief. They believe that science's inability to answer their questions proves their god's existence.

If they believe that, then they're not following a sound logical path to their conclusion. (Does that make them wrong? Depends who you ask.) And likewise, if science provides one or more plausible explanations for something which was once thought inexplicable and therefore attributed to a divine being or force, it doesn't rule out the existence of some such being or force.

it does not disprove the existence of their absent father figure.

Many deities are not very fatherly at all.

Coffee