Science vs. Philosophy

This is the place to debate politics, global warming, and yes, even the origin of man, whatever. Simply put, if you want to argue about off topic stuff, you've found the right board. Have fun!
User avatar
LoveJohnny
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:11 pm
Location: Quebec / Vermont

Re: Science vs. Philosophy

Postby LoveJohnny » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:58 am

The Secret Doctrine, page 731:

sd1.jpg
sd1.jpg (215.46 KiB) Viewed 2758 times

sd2.jpg
sd2.jpg (239.82 KiB) Viewed 2758 times

sd3.jpg
sd3.jpg (248.94 KiB) Viewed 2758 times
/...\ Peace, Love, Telemark and Tofu /...\
"Your heel (and mind) is not really free until you cut the cable..." -Me

User avatar
MikeK
Posts: 3516
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:12 pm

Re: Science vs. Philosophy

Postby MikeK » Sat Jul 18, 2015 8:03 pm

When was that written? Turn of the 19th century? Sounds very reminiscent of that era of science, maybe a little later - 10's or 20's?

The questions that elude us are always the same - they won't change. We'll learn more, but I don't believe those questions have definite answers using our thought processes. We simply aren't evolved enough to understand those type of things. It would be like asking a monkey to do calculus - it's beyond its brains computational power.

Science should never be so arrogant to think that it will find absolute resolution, even if our intelligence does evolve beyond it's current limits.

User avatar
LoveJohnny
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:11 pm
Location: Quebec / Vermont

Re: Science vs. Philosophy

Postby LoveJohnny » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:40 am

1888.

The questions that elude us are always the same - they won't change.

Yep, just like science, it will never solve anything. Just complicate things more and more... Always separating and splitting "elements" into other elements... Boring...

We simply aren't evolved enough to understand those type of things.

Speak for yourself. You are not evolved enough. Science men are not evolved enough. :D

That's actually the funniest thing... EVERYBODY knows! Theosophists, buddhists, occultists, hindus, kabalists, punks, junkies etc... Everybody knows except scientists! Because they forced their brains from a very early age to think only one way. They don't allow themselves to open their mind wide enough to see things a different way. They're stuck in their small, ultra-narrow rational world.

And that's one of the things Blavatsky is proving, in about some 2000 pages of pure knowledge...
/...\ Peace, Love, Telemark and Tofu /...\
"Your heel (and mind) is not really free until you cut the cable..." -Me

User avatar
LoveJohnny
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:11 pm
Location: Quebec / Vermont

Re: Science vs. Philosophy

Postby LoveJohnny » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:44 am

:D :D :D (Maybe I am a engineer after all...?)
Image
/...\ Peace, Love, Telemark and Tofu /...\
"Your heel (and mind) is not really free until you cut the cable..." -Me

User avatar
MikeK
Posts: 3516
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:12 pm

Re: Science vs. Philosophy

Postby MikeK » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:38 am

I apparently went through FML and wanted to minor in have no friends.

I always tell you Johnny, what you get from science and engineering is what you see. Engineering is not new like science, it's very, very old. It's what most scholars agree separates us from apes, although the apes do use some primitive engineering. The minute man chiseled the first spear head from stone to kill an animal, we crossed that line, and it's been a progression ever since.

Modern definition of engineering: Using science to solve practical problems.

Archaic definition of engineering: Using practical knowledge to solve problems.

What's the difference? Science just made it more rigorous. Math made science (physics in particular) more methodical.

You can perhaps escape science, but it's very hard to escape engineering. You would have to shun almost every implement (including fire) and live more primitively than the apes. Not even the most disciplined monks can do that.

I don't see there needs to be a dichotomy between science and philosophy (and religion). Obviously science is based on observation and measurement so it's very tangible and practical in terms of modifying our lives (although lifestyle modification existed before pure science through engineering).

To say that "EVERYBODY knows!" is arrogant. I feel quite the opposite. I feel like nobody knows and everybody has an opinion that is most likely incorrect (scientists included). Personally I feel it is quite irrelevant to everyday life so it really doesn't matter that much. I never get bent out of shape over people's beliefs, only when they try to impress them upon me or others. I believe that is about as open minded as you can get.

Granted I'm stubborn and set in my ways, and I feel my ways are best (for me), so that sometimes rubs off on others. That's the challenge of being open minded - it's to accept people's beliefs and not impress your own. All humans are terrible at that. If we weren't there would be no religion and no war.

Best you can do is try to realize this, give your opinions on the matter very delicately and listen to others intently.

User avatar
MikeK
Posts: 3516
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:12 pm

Re: Science vs. Philosophy

Postby MikeK » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:58 am

As far as logic, we know it cannot work in all social situations. We know it does not provide us absolute answers unless we have very simple and definitive inputs.

Take this case for example (I use this because someone tried to make logical argument about it that I'll outline later):

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-charges- ... ack-death/

This was a big deal and local to me - that track is a half hour from my house. Who Tony Stewart is is irrelevant. It's better if you don't know.

Point in case is that everyone turned their back on Kevin Ward when the autopsy showed marijuana in his system. There is no way to tell if he was driving high when he was killed, and to say that is a justification of his death is absolutely sick IMO. Point there is it was a PR nightmare and the DA knew he would fight a losing battle against some strong lawyers. He (the DA) deduced something using some calculations of his chances of conviction.

Now in this case, Kevin also jumped out of his car on a live race track and aggressively pointed at Tony Stewarts car. It just so happened that many other cars passed before Tony Stewart and Tony Stewart coincidentally was the one to hit him. Maybe not a coincidence. The evidence is quite lacking. The video is very poor. Yet I had a programmer at work try to give me a logical description that Kevin Ward deserved to die.

How do you decide who deserves to live and die? Can you do that? Can you do it with logic?

I cannot. No one can whether they use science, religion or philosophy. That is my point, and that is all. We don't know.

User avatar
LoveJohnny
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:11 pm
Location: Quebec / Vermont

Re: Science vs. Philosophy

Postby LoveJohnny » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:22 am

Modern definition of engineering: Using science to solve practical problems.
Archaic definition of engineering: Using practical knowledge to solve problems.

Very good point. But the thing is, there is no problem. There ain't no such thing as problems! Everything is harmony and balance. The only problems that exist in the universe are man-made. So we create problems, and then justify our lack of sense and our lack of time by spending our lives solving problems we created ourselves... Doesn't make any sense to me...

I don't know what to think of maths... It's something special. You can find the most complicated algorithm to represent just about everything, a star, a piece a software, a bird, anything... It's quite useless, but it's beautiful. Maths are poetry, it's art. Just as useless as art, but cool and fun.

Not knowing sucks. How can anyone be alive and not know what's going on? It's the very definition of waste and ignorance isn't it? The goal is to realize what's going on...

To say that "EVERYBODY knows!" is arrogant

I dunno... This is quite the most arrogant thing to me: We simply aren't evolved enough to understand those type of things. I hate to be a downer but I have to inform you that some people ARE evolved enough. Some people worked very hard to go further. Ok, not everybody, but a lot of people through history did it. A lot of people solved it all. My point is, none of them did it with science. Science is a trap. Materialism and science is evil. The good news is that there's a lot of things to learn from evil. How can anyone tell what's right without knowing what's wrong?

Granted I'm stubborn and set in my ways, and I feel my ways are best (for me)

Best for what? Surviving in this world? Staying alive as long as you can? What if that was not the goal at all?

I'm not giving my opinion. I'm not impressing my own. You don't even know my opinion. I'm just throwing food for thought.... ;)
/...\ Peace, Love, Telemark and Tofu /...\
"Your heel (and mind) is not really free until you cut the cable..." -Me

User avatar
MikeK
Posts: 3516
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:12 pm

Re: Science vs. Philosophy

Postby MikeK » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:42 am

Not true my friend. The first problem was food and survival. That's what started engineering at least from historical evidence - I won't be so arrogant to say definitively this is the answer, because I don't know? It could have been aliens, or something I cannot even fathom.

So anyway if you follow that train of thought, we perhaps evolved to our current status because we had a technological advantage in our engineering abilities. Again not truth, just an educated guess based on our progression.

Math? That is an entirely unique subject. Some believe it is the only truth. I cannot accept that. Was it invented by humans or discovered? Seems to be a bit of both and construct of our imaginations to make sense of the world.

There is an old joke in engineering that goes... And God said <insert any of the fundamental laws of science in mathematical form>

It is a joke because I don't think many people actually think a higher being made those exact rules and wrote them out as we do. But it works close enough for us.

I'm sorry you interpret my interpretation of humans lacking in evolution to understand why we are here, what the universe is and how it was created. It's simply my observation that there are so many different ideas on how this happened and none of them are based on any sort of evidence that we could use to prove definitively to someone who thinks it is different than it is the way we think it is. My simple deduction from that is we don't know. And when I think about it, I come up with so many contradictions (both my own and from others teachings) that I conclude we aren't smart enough to see the real workings. If we were, and we could translate so others could understand, there would be little debate. Instead it is quite opposite.

Maybe my definition of arrogance is different, but I see assertion of correctness as arrogance. Admitting one may not know entirely or may not see the whole picture is a much more humble stance. My reason for being humble on the matter is not absolute, I only assume we are not smart enough to know... again due to inconsistencies in how our brain perceives reality. You may have a different reason, but if you know, then what's the point? You might as well die now because there is no where else to go and nothing more to learn. That seems grim to me...

User avatar
connyro
Posts: 650
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:46 pm

Re: Science vs. Philosophy

Postby connyro » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:04 am

LoveJohnny wrote: Everything is harmony and balance. The only problems that exist in the universe are man-made. So we create problems, and then justify our lack of sense and our lack of time by spending our lives solving problems we created ourselves... Doesn't make any sense to me...
Yes, but everything is chaos and discord too. Harmony and balance is exactly what science and math try to find. It's not a problem, it's just how things work: Entropy and our ongoing fight against it.

LoveJohnny wrote:I don't know what to think of maths... It's something special. You can find the most complicated algorithm to represent just about everything, a star, a piece a software, a bird, anything... It's quite useless, but it's beautiful. Maths are poetry, it's art. Just as useless as art, but cool and fun.
Science and math triy to do the same thing as 'religion' or philosophy: quantify and describe our surroundings in a common language. It's not useless to us, but it is useless to the indifferent universe.

LoveJohnny wrote:Not knowing sucks. How can anyone be alive and not know what's going on? It's the very definition of waste and ignorance isn't it? The goal is to realize what's going on...
Agreed. And science helps cut through the chaos so we can see glimmers of pure truth. Some people express the idea that life is a mechanism of the universe attempting to observe and quantify itself.

LoveJohnny wrote:Science is a trap. Materialism and science is evil. The good news is that there's a lot of things to learn from evil. How can anyone tell what's right without knowing what's wrong?
Good and evil are ideas that were invented by humans: they are rooted in perspective and made by us to control behavior and thought. The universe is indifferent. Materialism is 'evil' from a human perspective but the universe couldn't give a shit.

"If we all ski with our hands up and out makes you wonder if you don't your going to plaster some trees.....Those poles have to be in a ready position or....."
-Teleman

User avatar
MikeK
Posts: 3516
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:12 pm

Re: Science vs. Philosophy

Postby MikeK » Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:22 pm

Another problem... it's hard to talk about science and philosophy without using scientific or philosophical terms! Entropy is very much a concept I believe in, because I can observe it, but its whole existence as an entity comes from its precise scientific definition.

And I totally agree that the universe does not care - from my perspective, I am insignificant and the planets will revolve and suns will be born and die, etc... of course from a philosophical standpoint maybe none of this exists unless I am there to observe it. It's only a projection of my minds eye and is irrelevant unless I am there to see it. This very egocentric view of the universe is not my view, but it could be correct. I find more balance and harmony in myself knowing that I am just riding and observing something that exists regardless of myself and that my influence is very minimal. Some people feel bothered by that. It makes me feel more like I am part of it rather than creating it.

This then leads into the next reply, in that life is the universe trying to observe itself. Again this may be just a man-made construct because is observation crucial to the universe, or is it just the way we are programmed to operate?

Our observation doesn't appear to show a true difference in good and evil beyond human nature, but we are part of the universe, so perhaps those laws and rules are just as relevant but we don't see them on the very large or very small scales. This is one area I feel we are completely in the dark in. Matters of our own brain and consciousness. It is rather tricky to analyze one's self, hence the problem perhaps.

As much as there isn't necessarily scientific rigor to describe things like Karma and balance in one's interactions, they still appear to be very much real from my perspective. I suppose if you chose to ignore stuff then it may seem random, but if you pay close attention, it seems these concepts can and do work. They are just words for the way we interact that I can't fully explain. Maybe I just believe it because I want to believe it?


Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest