+- Sinisterly (https://sinister.ly)
+-- Forum: General (https://sinister.ly/Forum-General)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://sinister.ly/Forum-The-Lounge)
+---- Forum: Serious Discussion (https://sinister.ly/Forum-Serious-Discussion)
+---- Thread: The perception of reason. (/Thread-The-perception-of-reason)
The perception of reason. - Fallen - 12-19-2013
Recently, I've come across various individuals who wish to understand the reason behind a specific behavior or process. Following this curiosity the question is often posed, "Why?" I'm here to propose two alternate perceptions, if you will, that may quench your thirst.
First, I offer, "Why not?" Instead of thinking with the general public, we will evaluate concepts as equations.
Why - x+y=?
Why not - ?+x=z or y+?=z?
Already, we may contemplate the presented material with several branches of knowledge. The question, "Why not?" seems to carry an infinite amount of possibilities in answers, without an expected answer or objective truth.
The question, "Why?" seems to request that the answer provided is one that is assumed.
The second alternative I wish to present is questioning the existence of a reason. It appears to be that individuals are always ready to provide a reason, when prompted to, or reason(s), provided that the first alternative approach of replying to answers is taken, for a process/system. From my existential state, I sometimes wonder if there even exists such reasons behind the presented material(s).
I realize that perhaps my thoughts may not be understood by most, but I wish to share them.
RE: The perception of reason. - Grin - 12-22-2013
Unless I'm understanding this wrong it would seem as if this is simply an excuse to not provide evidence.
RE: The perception of reason. - Fallen - 12-22-2013
(12-22-2013, 04:27 AM)Gin Wrote: Unless I'm understanding this wrong it would seem as if this is simply an excuse to not provide evidence.
You must be understanding it wrong, then.
RE: The perception of reason. - Grin - 12-22-2013
(12-22-2013, 04:36 AM)Fallen Wrote: You must be understanding it wrong, then.
Would you care to explain? The OP isn't worded in the best manner and it's confusing.
Here's a breakdown of your post and my understanding of what you are trying to convey. Please do correct me where I'm wrong and fill in the gaps.
(12-19-2013, 08:13 PM)Fallen Wrote: Recently, I've come across various individuals who wish to understand the reason behind a specific behavior or process. Following this curiosity the question is often posed, "Why?" I'm here to propose two alternate perceptions, if you will, that may quench your thirst.
You've come across people wanting to know the reasons things happen the way they do, so they ask 'why'. You're going to provide alternate perceptions. So far, so good.
(12-19-2013, 08:13 PM)Fallen Wrote: First, I offer, "Why not?" Instead of thinking with the general public, we will evaluate concepts as equations.
You have already lost me. When somebody asks the question 'why', how does asking 'why not' help his or her understanding at all? It is true that we may not know the answer at this time and therefore the only valid response we could give is 'I don't know'. Responding with 'why not' is simply avoiding responsibility for responding to the question.
(12-19-2013, 08:13 PM)Fallen Wrote: Why - x+y=?
Why not - ?+x=z or y+?=z?
Again, I don't really understand these equations and their relevance to 'why not'.
(12-19-2013, 08:13 PM)Fallen Wrote: Already, we may contemplate the presented material with several branches of knowledge. The question, "Why not?" seems to carry an infinite amount of possibilities in answers, without an expected answer or objective truth.
The question 'why not' about an unknown doesn't have an infinite number of possibilities. The question 'why not' asks to disprove the notion that some unknown can exist, but if somebody is asking 'why' about something that exists, that itself is proof that it can exist rendering the question useless.
(12-19-2013, 08:13 PM)Fallen Wrote: The question, "Why?" seems to request that the answer provided is one that is assumed.
Not assumed, backed by science (at least for the most part).
(12-19-2013, 08:13 PM)Fallen Wrote: The second alternative I wish to present is questioning the existence of a reason. It appears to be that individuals are always ready to provide a reason, when prompted to, or reason(s), provided that the first alternative approach of replying to answers is taken, for a process/system. From my existential state, I sometimes wonder if there even exists such reasons behind the presented material(s).
If a scientifically backed reason is provided, there is no reason to ponder if the reason exists. The only thing I can see your philosophy being applied to off the top of my head is something like the Big Bang, where science can't explain why it happened.
(12-19-2013, 08:13 PM)Fallen Wrote: I realize that perhaps my thoughts may not be understood by most, but I wish to share them.
Then take the time to at least try and make this easy instead of responding the way you did.
In conclusion, I believe that this philosophy is extremely limited in its application to real life.
RE: The perception of reason. - Fallen - 12-22-2013
Quote: Not assumed, backed by science (at least for the most part).
What's science backed by?
Quote:If a scientifically backed reason is provided, there is no reason to ponder if the reason exists.
There's no reason for me to keep replying then.
Quote: In conclusion, I believe that this philosophy is extremely limited in its application to real life.
Define, "real" life.
RE: The perception of reason. - Grin - 12-22-2013
Why does everybody who reads a little bit of philosophy answer everything with a subjective question? This is a 'debate' section, not a respond to everything with 'well it depends on how you define it' responses.
As per you're reply:
Fallen Wrote:What's science backed by?
At it's core it's backed by observations.
Fallen Wrote:There's no reason for me to keep replying then.
How is your responding to my inquiry at all related to the pondering about the existence of something that exists? A real life scenario: Somebody asks why water evaporates. By you're philosophy the answer to this question is 'why not', and you proceed to ponder if there is an answer to this question. This would be similar to me driving past a forest and then pondering the existence of trees. It's a waste of time. But how is that at all relevant to your defense of your philosophy?
Fallen Wrote:Define, "real" life.
First of all, that is improper comma use. To answer your inquiry, by "real" life, I mean the physical world.
RE: The perception of reason. - Fallen - 12-22-2013
Quote: First of all, that is improper comma use. To answer your inquiry, by "real" life, I mean the physical world.
I'm not subjected to any grammatical or linguistic "rules" that you might be subjected. Therefore, there's no such thing as "improper" comma usage.
What is the "physical" world?
Quote:Somebody asks why water evaporates. By you're philosophy the answer to this question is 'why not', and you proceed to ponder if there is an answer to this question. This would be similar to me driving past a forest and then pondering the existence of trees. It's a waste of time. But how is that at all relevant to your defense of your philosophy?
Is there really an answer to this question?
What isn't as waste of time?
Who said this was my philosophy? Who said I was defending it?
Quote: At it's core it's backed by observations.
Are you saying then, that observations are infallible? If not, there's no reason for it to be bought up as if it could be used to debunk this "philosophy".
RE: The perception of reason. - Grin - 12-23-2013
From you're reply, it's obvious that you aren't willing to converse in an intellectual manner, so I must apologize to myself for wasting my time. Anyways, I do hope this is not a philosophy you plan to live by, because if it is you can say goodbye to people in real life respecting you. Good luck to you mate.
RE: The perception of reason. - Fallen - 12-23-2013
(12-23-2013, 12:52 AM)Gin Wrote: From you're reply, it's obvious that you aren't willing to converse in an intellectual manner, so I must apologize to myself for wasting my time. Anyways, I do hope this is not a philosophy you plan to live by, because if it is you can say goodbye to people in real life respecting you. Good luck to you mate.
From *your* reply, it's obvious that you aren't willing to converse in an intellectual manner, so I must apologize to myself for attempting to educate a monkey. Anyways, I hope you can find a philosophy that you can live by in a future that isn't based on what other people have told you. Also, if you plan on living your life so that other people respect you, then you're going to be living a lot of other people's life. Good luck to you.
RE: The perception of reason. - Grin - 12-24-2013
(12-23-2013, 12:58 AM)Fallen Wrote: From *your* reply, it's obvious that you aren't willing to converse in an intellectual manner, so I must apologize to myself for attempting to educate a monkey. Anyways, I hope you can find a philosophy that you can live by in a future that isn't based on what other people have told you. Also, if you plan on living your life so that other people respect you, then you're going to be living a lot of other people's life. Good luck to you.
Resorting to name-calling isn't usually in the repertoire of teenagers who think they have life figured out. But if thinking of me as a monkey makes you feel better about this LQ thread, then so be it. As far as a philosophy that isn't based on what others say, why would I want to live by such a philosophy? I've heard a large amount of good advice over the course of my life and to create a philosophy that ignores all of that would be as silly as the one this thread is about. You're last statement before 'good luck' is much like you're philosophy in that it's insensible. The only advice I can give you is to stop trying to be so unique. Conforming to society isn't necessarily a bad thing.