#1
For the philosopher's on UG and those interested in philosophy.

After a while thinking about it, I articulated this thought. I'd really appreciate for people to have a bit of a stab at it. I'm trying to develop them as much as I can.

- What people want and what they can expect from life is informed by what they percieve as possible. Therefore, use your imagination. Possibility is limited only by the audacity of your ideas. Always think for yourself. You will never know any universal, objective or utterly 'real' meaning of life other than the meaning that you give yourself.
#2
philosophical thoughts go right over my head... my cat eats cat food
Yours Sincerely,


Dr. Speakers
#3
*Imagines himself flying Millennium Falcon whilst getting a blow from Elisha Cuthbert*

Quote by hazzmatazz
youmakemesmile...

Quote by sebastian_96
Today I stole a girls tampons for being such an annoying bitch.





MUFC


My love for you
Is like a truck
Berserker.
#5
It kind of makes sense, but in its attempt at elaborate wording, it almost contradicts itself. Seems kind of like the stale "believe and you will achieve" mantra.
#6
You're saying that expectations are limited by possibility, which is in turn limited by imagination. This simply isn't true. I can imagine myself doing any number of things, but I don't expect them.
#7
Quote by Dirge Humani
But, by your logic, imagination would be limited by what people perceive as possible, therefore, imagining would be pointless.

Yes, I am saying that possibility is limited by imagination. But why is it pointless?

Quote by sk8nalmost1394
You're saying that expectations are limited by possibility, which is in turn limited by imagination. This simply isn't true. I can imagine myself doing any number of things, but I don't expect them.

Ahhhhh very good. Very good indeed. Thankyou, I will consider this.
Last edited by bassboy 999 at Nov 19, 2009,
#9
Quote by Dirge Humani
You misread me.

By your logic, imagination would be limited by people's perceptions, therefore, imagination would be limited, and possibilities wouldn't be endless.


This.
#10
You will never know any universal, objective or utterly 'real' meaning of life other than the meaning that you give yourself.


relativism.
"There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

e-married to zgr0826
#11
Quote by bassboy 999
What people want and what they can expect from life is informed by what they percieve as possible. Therefore, use your imagination. Possibility is limited only by the audacity of your ideas. Always think for yourself. You will never know any universal, objective or utterly 'real' meaning of life other than the meaning that you give yourself.


Although the possibility of an action or thought is obviously affected by imagination it is not limited by it; your imagination is effectively offering you different possibilities then, and therefore it is not limited by "audacity of your ideas"; you are limited by a physical causation that lead to that decision; so your arguement in a sense is effectively realiant on the justification of a free agent acting on its own ideas; which is quite controversial to say the least as most philosophers today believe in a strong form of determinism in one form or another; one could then move on to argue that if there is causality in reality; then life may have a real and objective meaning; although one could still easily claim that this is still no justification of meaning or direction.

The relativistic point that you seem to have addressed however is quite flawed in that by the fact that a person gives life meaning it is implied to have meaning; everyone is giving life their own meaning, based on their own experience; now all experiences are similar, given the factor of human limitation, so therefore all meanings are similar in material; this meaning is again, limited by the reality one finds themselves in rather than their ideas.

(Imagine a schizophrenic; arguably the "meaning" of their life is still affected by the reality they find themselves in; both their own reality and the material reality)

I think you are seperating"reality", "ideas", and "meaning" from each other without justification; who is to say that they are not one "entity"?
Generalisations =/= Prejedice
#12
I imagined a man with a chest of drawers for a chin once, but I doubt that's possible.
I'LL PUNCH A DONKEY IN THE STREETS OF GALWAY
#13
Quote by Dirge Humani
You misread me.

By your logic, imagination would be limited by people's perceptions, therefore, imagination would be limited, and possibilities wouldn't be endless.

Yes and I said
- 'Possibility is limited only by the audacity of your ideas'.

It's more or less the same thing.

My point is more so that people should not just accept things as they are. Life can be conducted in many different ways. Use your noggin and think about it.

Quote by Dosed.
relativism.

Indeed.
#14
Quote by Dirge Humani
But, by your logic, imagination would be limited by what people perceive as possible, therefore, imagining would be pointless.


But without imagination, possibilities wouldn't have been born.

Way back before electricity, I high doubt anyone would have been able to imagine a ball with a light in it, that you plugged into your wall or something and it lit the room.

SOMEONE imagined that.


Imagination is limited by your knowledge, not by what you perceive as possible.

And invention is limited by imagination.


See how that works?
Quote by RU Experienced? , bass-man9712


Quote by DecaPodge
I love you.
#15
Quote by the666thmessiah
Although the possibility of an action or thought is obviously affected by imagination it is not limited by it; your imagination is effectively offering you different possibilities then, and therefore it is not limited by "audacity of your ideas"; you are limited by a physical causation that lead to that decision; so your arguement in a sense is effectively realiant on the justification of a free agent acting on its own ideas; which is quite controversial to say the least as most philosophers today believe in a strong form of determinism in one form or another; one could then move on to argue that if there is causality in reality; then life may have a real and objective meaning; although one could still easily claim that this is still no justification of meaning or direction.

Agreed
Thankyou.

Quote by the666thmessiah

The relativistic point that you seem to have addressed however is quite flawed in that by the fact that a person gives life meaning it is implied to have meaning

I thought that the reason that we give life our own meaning is because we find an absence of meaning in the first place.

Quote by the666thmessiah

everyone is giving life their own meaning, based on their own experience; now all experiences are similar, given the factor of human limitation, so therefore all meanings are similar in material; this meaning is again, limited by the reality one finds themselves in rather than their ideas.

Yes, I know that experiences heavily affect our perceptions of things. But you say that people's meanings are similar because of thier similar experiences. I will agree again. However, this is precisely what I recognised first and foremost when I set out to assert that using one's own 'free thinking' (better term to use than imagination) would set a new and larger field than that of experience in which to seek meaning.
Quote by the666thmessiah

I think you are seperating"reality", "ideas", and "meaning" from each other without justification; who is to say that they are not one "entity"?

mmm...
#16
Quote by HorizonShadow
But without imagination, possibilities wouldn't have been born.

Way back before electricity, I high doubt anyone would have been able to imagine a ball with a light in it, that you plugged into your wall or something and it lit the room.

SOMEONE imagined that.


Imagination is limited by your knowledge, not by what you perceive as possible.

And invention is limited by imagination.


See how that works?


people dont just imagine something then go an invent it, they use current knowledge and ususally have a cascading thought into something that may be useful; so yes, imagination is limited by what you perceive as possible; purely because your knowledge is limited by your perception of possibility and vice versae..
Generalisations =/= Prejedice
#18
Quote by bassboy 999
I thought that the reason that we give life our own meaning is because we find an absence of meaning in the first place.


Yes, thats why humans imply it to have meaning, when it may not; again, it moves back to the point that you are seperating meaning, reality, and ideas from each other; if they are even intertwined and not even a single entity, then there is still could be an object meaning to life

Quote by bassboy 999
Yes, I know that experiences heavily affect our perceptions of things. But you say that people's meanings are similar because of thier similar experiences. I will agree again. However, this is precisely what I recognised first and foremost when I set out to assert that using one's own 'free thinking' (better term to use than imagination) would set a new and larger field than that of experience in which to seek meaning.


Im not sure what you are meaning by "setting a new and larger field"?
Generalisations =/= Prejedice
#20
Quote by bassboy 999
What people want and what they can expect from life is informed by what they percieve as possible. Therefore, use your imagination. Possibility is limited only by the audacity of your ideas. Always think for yourself. You will never know any universal, objective or utterly 'real' meaning of life other than the meaning that you give yourself.


#21
Quote by the666thmessiah
Yes, thats why humans imply it to have meaning, when it may not; again, it moves back to the point that you are seperating meaning, reality, and ideas from each other; if they are even intertwined and not even a single entity, then there is still could be an object meaning to life

Right, I'm with you now. Curiously though, is that you think or are you just clarifying it for me?

Quote by the666thmessiah

Im not sure what you are meaning by "setting a new and larger field"?

1/ If all our thoughts and meanings were based from experience.
2/ If all our thoughts and meanings were based from experiences + free thinking

2>1
#22
Your choice of language impedes the conveyance of the thoughts you espouse.

Quote by bassboy 999
- What people want and what they can expect from life

is informed by

what they percieve as possible.
imho, informed is a poor choice for the verb.

Maybe shaped or affected ?

Quote by bassboy 999
Therefore, use your imagination.
This is a somewhat common format. You started with a "fact". Now, in this sentence, you're issuing a directive or attempting to inspire.

Quote by bassboy 999
Possibility is limited only by the audacity of your ideas.
I really hate the way this is framed. The more audacious or bold an idea, the less limitation we have on the possibilities, correct?

It would be much better if the word you chose instead of audacity was the inverse.

OR you could keep audacity and find something inverse to "limit".
Quote by bassboy 999
Always think for yourself.
Return to directive or inspiration. Okay.

Quote by bassboy 999
You will never know any universal, objective or utterly 'real' meaning of life other than the meaning that you give yourself.
Clumsy.

It's not clear whether this is the meaning you assign to yourself.
OR
The meaning you (yourself) assign to the meaning of life.


Clarity of language is paramount in little exercises like this.
Any ambiguity steals focus away from the message itself.

Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#23
Quote by bassboy 999
Right, I'm with you now. Curiously though, is that you think or are you just clarifying it for me?


Its not what I believe... I believe in nothing either way (any of my own theories I come up with I destroy for myself eventually lol).. its sort of both :P

Quote by bassboy 999

1/ If all our thoughts and meanings were based from experience.
2/ If all our thoughts and meanings were based from experiences + free thinking

2>1


ah ok then. Personally I believe this is a point you may want to justify a bit more to give your arguement strength then (like the seperation of certain realities, or the joining of them, Im not sure which of the two you are doing now)... you may be interested in philosophical idealism; check out Kant, Hegel, Pearson, Schopenhauer, and Leibniz...
Generalisations =/= Prejedice
#24
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
Your choice of language impedes the conveyance of the thoughts you espouse.

Clarity of language is paramount in little exercises like this.
Any ambiguity steals focus away from the message itself.


Yeah, you're completely right.
I will be less clumsy in the future.
#25
Quote by the666thmessiah
Its not what I believe... I believe in nothing either way (any of my own theories I come up with I destroy for myself eventually lol).. its sort of both :P

Yah, thought so. That's just the unfortunate way it is for good philosophers

Quote by the666thmessiah

ah ok then. Personally I believe this is a point you may want to justify a bit more to give your arguement strength then (like the seperation of certain realities, or the joining of them, Im not sure which of the two you are doing now)... you may be interested in philosophical idealism; check out Kant, Hegel, Pearson, Schopenhauer, and Leibniz...

Lol, I just finished my first course in philosophy at uni, so all those names are well and truly familiar, but really not my area of expertise just yet. Kudos. Thanks alot mate