Full Version : The Philosophy Thread
<< Prev | Next >>
*Tragic*Priestess*- 12-15-2005
This is the thread that deals with any form of Philosophy. I am creating this to get a better understand of philosophy and also to prepare myself for a philosophy class I will have beginning in February. Plus, it makes a good debate thread.
So basically, I will begin by asking a simple question. Hopefully if this thread is a success, then someone else can post a philosophical question after the previous one has had some good debate.
Please do NOT post in here if you have nothing to say. ABSOLUTELY NO SPAMMING or punishments will occur. If you agree to a previous post, please add on with your own opinion. The only way this can work is if you post your opinion. Do not BASH others as well.
Remember: Philosophy is a wide topic, it contains anything from famous quotes to ethics/morals to bizarre questions (ex. tree falls down, does it make a sound if no one is around to hear it??)
Here is my question:
What do you think this quote means: “To each their own”?
I’m just here to start it off, I will give you my opinion if this starts up. **
Origin- 12-15-2005
| QUOTE (*Tragic*Priestess* @ Dec 15 2005, 05:35 PM) |
Here is my question:
What do you think this quote means: “To each their own”?
|
To each their own...I would assume either a possession of something, belongs to themselves, such as,
there are 3 pairs of socks, to each their own, could possibly mean that perhaps, 1 of each, belongs to them, (i used 3 as an example)
possibly, to each their own, can be a saying, used to describe valor, pride or destiny, as in,
To each their own, could let's say for an example, battle. that quote can be used to say that everyone has their own battle in life, it is written in their fate.
of course, perhaps, you can take out battle, and put in pie....it COULD work, but, we've all eaten more then 1 pie, so i guess we would have to find the ultimate pie.
xD
Yigstrandil- 12-15-2005
Hm, I always thought "to each their own" was kinda a postmodern cop-out statement. Like person A would say, "Chicken is the supreme form of meat!." Person B would say, "I like beef better, but to each their own." I guess it means something close to "everyone's entitled to their beliefs, so just go with whatever you want."
Postmodernism is a viewpoint where each individual has their own specific truth. Outside of science (an exteremely modern viewpoint), we're a pretty postmodern society. I might be a Christian, but because we value individual truth more than a universal Truth, I won't try to push my beliefs onto my Hindu friend. "Oh, Rob might be going to below because he dosen't accept Jesus as his personal saviour, but to each their own. He can worship a Shiva idol if he wants." someone might say. A true postmodernist might say that there are no universal truths, and science is kinda a waste of time, because we cannot ever know anything %100 with science.
Myself, I try not to play the postmodern game. Wind isn't caused exclusively by tigers, hats aren't out to kill me, and whatnot.
*Tragic*Priestess*- 12-15-2005
My viewpoint is somewhat based on what Yig said "Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs so just say what you want."
So since I do not follow Origin's "belief' on this quote, doesn't mean its wrong or w/e....To Each Their Own - To each person, their own Beliefs?
Its hard to fill in the lines, because it depends on what it is you want to fill it with.
Origin- 12-16-2005
I generally had the idea right, i just used different examples
SSB- 12-16-2005
so whut you want? Okay, but it gets you banned and crap, and in AMerica it can get you arrested, so I care not.
*Tragic*Priestess*- 12-16-2005
Okay...and I say What? ^
Wrong spot Isaac??
Yeah I guess what Mr. Beans did say the same thing, just your examples were funny...
I find this quote a hard thing to explain. It is basically a quote relating on individuality and personal opinions. The quote basically says, you are entitled to your own beliefs.
Well if anyone else wants to post on that go ahead, but if someone else has another philosophical question to debate then please ask it.
*Tragic*Priestess*- 02-06-2006
Since I have just begun Philosophy...I have more questions I can ask. Here's the next one:
Can you hear the sound of silence?
I'll give you mine later.
SSB- 02-06-2006
wow, wtf, was I effin high or something when I posted up there??
*Tragic*Priestess*- 02-06-2006
Sylvaron- 02-06-2006
I can hear silence. Cause it makes a buzzing sound. Human ears can't take complete silence.
/Non philosiphical answer.
Old Skewl CJ- 02-06-2006
Silence is the essence of no sound. It's kind of confusin' but I do not think we can ever hear total and complete silence.
Yigstrandil- 02-06-2006
| QUOTE (*Tragic*Priestess* @ Feb 6 2006, 06:44 PM) |
Since I have just begun Philosophy...I have more questions I can ask. Here's the next one:
Can you hear the sound of silence?
I'll give you mine later. |
Silly Nisha, of *course* you can't hear silence! The very definition of silence is nothing audiable. Silence, a complete lack of sonic input, would not be hearing *anything.*
If you were able to *hear* *silence*, you'd have to change the definition of one of the words.
I think Sylvaron's anwser is wrong because that buzzing sound isn't really sound, just our imperfect human bodies screwing up. It'd be like calling the static on a TV tuned to an empty channel, a TV show.
Backwards Blues- 02-07-2006
Since this is more of a scientific question than a philosophical one, I shall counter with this:
If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?
The answer? NO! It makes Vibrations, sound is the result of the brain interperting the vibrations picked up by the ear drum. :D THE MORE YOU KNOW!
Now, Say I just placed a rock in front of you, prove that the rock is really there.
My answer will be posted later.
*Tragic*Priestess*- 02-07-2006
ah yes...the tree...we discussed that the very same day too =\
And I did not come up with this question, my philo teacher did.
My answer is: You can NOT hear silence because silence is, as Yig stated. "nothing audible". You can't HEAR silence, but you can in a sense be "IN" silence, meaning you can experience it.
But can you ever truly experience silence? No, because if there are no outer sounds to disturb you, you will have sounds coming from your body, such as breathing.
What arguments can you come up with to say, YES you CAN hear silence?
As for Rakkooo's question, does the rock in front of me exist?
Yes it exists because I can see it, and to believe that something exists you will have to experience it. Your senses, touch, taste (although I wouldn't taste a rock) smell, and most importantly sight, all tell me that this rock exists. It is there on this physical world. So yes it DOES.
Now you could name it something completely different and say Oh but this isn't a rock its a GKLSJELKFSJ....to someone completely ignorant/stupid. XD
Free Forum Hosting by Forumer.comTM!