I know this thread is typically for problems, but I'm feeling really great right now. I've found a girl that is beautiful and genuinely makes me happy, and I've dodged the friendzone. We've been dating for a couple months now. Everything's just really good and I just wanted to share.
I believe American culture is fundamentally defined by the ideal of rugged individualism. It's what set us out towards the west, people searching for a way to make their own lives, even if it is harder. It drove much of the policy during formative years of the republic, and now, with no frontier, America no longer faces West, but towards the entire globe.
Essentially, I think that America was made by people "lighting out for the territory" to quote Twain.
Well, I guess Wikipedia is a good way since the composer's page almost always mention their most significant works and why those works are significant. And then you can listen with that in mind...
Or you could also just find anything and listen.
One thing though, just don't try to approach it like if you were listening to any commercial album today, ie here's a list of tracks, or let's download their whole discography and listen to random tracks. That's not how these guys compiled their music. Most of the time, any one piece or track belongs in a larger suite (symphony, quartet, sonata, etc).
Thank you, and yes I will be wary of that. Hopefully I'll learn a bit more too. Are there any books you suggest, or just wikipedia?
That's weird man. I hardly know anyone who thoroughly enjoys Haydn. I personally can't stand his music...sounds so square and bland to me. What aspects of it do you like?
Like I said, I know hardly anything technical. But, if I had to put it in words, it's that the direction of the music tends to go towards where I want it to. I like how the instrument playing the lead is very delicate typically. And how the mood comes from the back, that is the chords and backing musicians, up to the front.
Though unspecific, that's what I like. I would really like some other recommendations too, thusfar I've only listened to the CDs that I've found of my family's:
A collection of Beethoven's most famous works Complete symphonies of Schubert Haydn's piano sonatas Some of Haydn's concertos The Best of Mozart
I'm just getting into classical music and really enjoying Haydn. I hardly know anything about it, so it's fun to have a bit of music that is purely enjoyed and not dissected for the time, although I'd love to learn more about the theory of it all.
I actually like most what I said about finding the beauty in life. That has different outcomes for different people. I guess for me beauty lies not only in the natural world but also in the compassion of a selfless act. I'm going to put this forth as my meaning.
I wouldn't say that it has to be acting upon ones answers. Life is about living for one another. Certainly science can be for one another. But simply searching for the answer is not enough. One should seek not only the answers for answers sake but the answers for the sake of benefiting humanity. If you cannot find answer then help in a concrete manner, in fact, even if one does find the answers they should not be afrai to humble themselves in the everyday duties of one man towards another.
I think finding beauty in the world is another crucial aspect of life.
Id also like to say that this is an awesome discussion. No matter what opinion one is of discussing questions such as these benefits all parties.
I think it can e both but I don't think someone who has only looked for answers and never acted upon any answers or dedicated any of their time towards a selfless cause has led a truly meaningful life.
I admit that I am woefully ignorant to scientific matters. And while that does not justify my belief it simply puts a bigger role for the divine. It's not that I think God programs computers but more along the lines of th possibility for humans o create computers is there because of the world that we occupy. God to me is like the keeper of the natural laws of the universe.
If we begin to talk about the purpose of life and whether or not it lies in the examined or the unexamined, then I'd like to say that for myself at least neither guarantees purpose. I think purpose is found in ones actions not kn their quest for knowledge.
Sure to the gaps question. I also find myself both ignorant to the finer points of silence and unlikely to learn those answers myself. Therefore I have many more gaps than the scientific community. I have no doubt I will need God to answer questions for my whole life even if others don't.
My Internet went down so this is from my phone and it'll probably be the last I say until tomorrow but I'll try to answer your questions.
As I said I know hardly anything of science which is why I'm trying to do this philosophically but I feel there is some disconnect. I'm saying that because I don't know much about science it seems from a distance quite complex so o me a single omnipotent explanation for the universe is quite simple. That being said I recognize that this statement comes from scientific ignorance but I also think that philosophically it quite makes sense. I wonder what I will think after my first physics course. Perhaps my mind will be changed.
I am trying to stick to philosophical arguments but by nature of our discussion I end up phrasing some of them scientifically. This usually results in some dumbassery by me but, alas, that is the way of the Internet. The point is that no one has taught me anything pertaining to physics except for the slight bit I may have gotten in chemistry class two years ago.
As to the Berkeley blue question. The idea is that our ideas exist (oversimplified) the way that this relates is through an article written by c.s. Lewis essentially stating by virtue of the fact that God has been created as an idea, he exis because the perception of him exists. Essentially it does not matter whether or not God physically exists.
Don't worry. I dont think all of society should give up science I was just saying that I myself don't find it apealing to search for all of the answers.
Again this is my last of the day, I'll check in tomorrow.
I agree that sciences explanation isn't neat and conclusive - but at least science isn't willing to settle. The key difference for me between science and religion is that science has a change clause - it is always willing (albeit somewhat reluctantly sometimes) to change. Religions explanation cannot change because it is already the answer and I'd be willing to bet that even in the face of irrefutable evidence religion would still hold fast.
I would wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I, however, find the settling appealing.
I didn't realize that you were gonna completely ignore scientific evidence if you can't make sense of it. Well, if I am employing my own Ockham's razor then it makes sense to choose the simpler option. The problem with Ockham's razor being this very thing. Different people find different arguments less complex.
Not even close. I'm beginning to see why it doesn't make sense to you. Well yes, I am far more versed in philosophy than physics. Therefore my arguments are more philosophical than scientific in nature. I'll be taking physics next year so we'll see
At the moment of the Big Bang, universal Laws of Physics simply don't apply and there is no point in pretending we know that " There must then be an actor that acts upon the universe to set it into motion". No-one has a clue at all. see above
To be is to be perceived sounds like Schrodinger's Cat. George Berkeley, he was among the three big empiricists of the time along with Locke and Hume. the idea is essentially that what we can sense and quantify can be quite unreliable, and therefore we can only know that our perceptions exist, even if only as perceptions. It is an idea known as subjective idealism.
Bro, if you want to you can believe God got a boner and decided to jack it, and his explosive orgasm and divine ejaculate(comprised of Higgs particles) created time and space as we know it. Whatever gives you peace of mind.
The Big Bang created space. And we don't know what made the Higgs, or whether anything even had to. If this speck of unknowing is what your God depends upon, wouldn't it be a better plan to first find out before thinking a God exists?
Fair play to you if you think your thoughts are worth more stock than the collective scientific effort of every nation on Earth though.
It's not singularly my own thought, don't make this out to be me as the lone hold out. I just feel as though scientific evidence does not explain the universe that makes sense to me. What good (to me) is an explanation that does not make sense to me? It isn't very useful.
What caused the big bang? The big bang occurred because of a collision of particles (am I right on this?) therefore there was a certain rate of speed that these particles must have been moving. rate=distance/time. If we acknowledge that there is an age of the universe then we acknowledge that there is a time now. We can subtract this time until we get to zero, at which point there is no rate of the universe. There must then be an actor that acts upon the universe to set it into motion.
Finally, though it doesn't necessarily fit with current western ontological belief, I find myself believing in Berkeley's esse est percipi that is, to be is to be perceived.
But at the moment a divine explanation would just be everything we already know from the scientific one with God tacked on the end with all the problems that brings up. If you think adding an extra element as complex as a God makes everything simple then more power to you.
I mean, what even constitutes a divine explanation? Creationism is absolutely fucking done for, there's no coming back on it now. The Higgs was just the final nail in the coffin.
What created the Higgs, what created space?
That entity is what I hold to be divine. I am not some evangelical preaching human human coexistence with dinosaurs. I find those people startlingly stupid, but I do feel as though there is a divine force behind everything.
I am very much a romanticist in thinking, and far less of a rationalist. Just by nature I take less stock in scientific explantation and details and more in thought. At times I find myself tending towards a Berkeleyian view of the world.
So you'd accept that "God does not exist" is more likely than "God exists"?
No, because I find a scientific explanation of the universe far more complex than a divine one. However, if one finds the scientific explanation less complex, then I would admit that Ockham's Razor would conclude that "God does not exist" is more likely than "God exists."
However, for me, personally, "God exists" is more likely.
I'm not saying it proves he doesn't exist, but if we hack at our ideas with Occam's razor we're left with no reason to think he does.
exactly, I have nothing grounded in fact.
Personally, I believe Ockham's Razor is better served when explaining things with great sample sizes; however, because it is a tool, its use is at the thinker's discretion. It was not intended to answer all things, but rather provide the likely answer.
I've got the fairly sizeable fact that everything we've ever discovered about this universe works absolutely perfectly without one.
Saying that the universe without God is not saying that there is no God. Everything in the universe works if there is a God as well. But that is not substantial proof for His existence. Like I said, there is no concrete evidence either way. There likely never will be. Therefore it boils down to belief: which is exactly what religion is.