Log in

No account? Create an account
A Group for Furries to Discuss Philosophy's Journal
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in A Group for Furries to Discuss Philosophy's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010
12:03 am
You don't know what you got till its gone
I have recently been reminded that you shouldn't take anything for granted. As each day seems to draw by faster and faster, we forget to stop, step back and enjoy the view. I know the attractions of that next big high (next holiday, next paycheck, next latest must have fashion accessory), but how many of us are grateful of where we are already? Dissatisfaction is so easy to listen to, but when a good thing goes you'll miss it:

"Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone"

This fits in very closely with the Buddhist teachings which I've taken to heart. Everything that is here and now we should endevour to appreciate, and when tomorrow becomes today we should appreciate that as well. Its almost as if there are these treasures that we pass by every day because we've got our sights fixed too firmly on a bit of pretty glass in the distance.
Tuesday, March 24th, 2009
9:03 pm
Thoughts on the Nature of Love
"Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself. Love possesses not nor would it be possessed; For love is sufficient unto love." - Kahlil Gibran

I just came across this quote doing more cryptograms....and it's a fascinating view of love. It presents love as comparable to a self-sustaining organism. A perfect concept; perfectly balanced, as it needs nothing but itself for both manifestation and sustenance. Yet the quote belies the potential power contained therein. Love appears to be the ideal that not only lies in harmony with anything and everything, but is the creator of that harmony in so many cases.

But the universe proves that everything has a price. I'm trying to figure out the price of love as presented as this distant, vague, and broad--yet almost personified and therefore individualized and highly approachable--concept. Surely, we cannot appreciate love without knowing its antithetical enemies--concepts such as war, hate, and hurt. But once love is manifested--allegedly of its own accord, giving the manifestation itself a price of nothing--what is its price? I have seen those who give love freely continue to give until they are exhausted of it, because they have not received comparable reciprocation. Perhaps this is what Gibran meant in saying that "love is sufficient unto love." But true, unyielding, undying love needs not reciprocation. The giver will continue to give, uncaring of its own drain on other resources, both internal and external, until it withers away, used up to nothingness by its own endless generosity built from love. Perhaps this is the price of what is allegedly the most perfect and most powerful of all emotions and experiences. Love requires reciprocation, or else its bearer becomes drained until it can go no further.

As for me, I want to continue to love, and I am eternally happy and grateful to know those who reciprocate it to me. It is a blessing beyond blessings, and truly, the penultimate reason to be alive each and every day.

Any thoughts?

Current Mood: pensive
Monday, March 16th, 2009
12:42 am
To Soapbox or Not To Soapbox
It seems to be a common thread, many thinkers are also fiction writers.  Fiction is probably the best way to explore a hypothetical "what if," test it out, and see how plausible it sounds.  That said, fiction also is something of a vacuum in which you can make just about any idea work.

Anyway, my biggest question is about personal preferences.  To those who write fiction, how much of your own thoughts about issues do you inject?  Do you make an effort not to become too wrapped up in declaring your stance on everything?  Do you just casually let the chips fall where they may?  Or maybe you are very open and blatant about what you put into your fictional stories.

I tend to try to keep a certain distance between a lot of my ideas and the stories I write.  I do have some stories that usually have themes related to my ideas, but I try to make that secondary to telling a good story and making the chemistry between the characters believable.   My characters may go through the same inner monologues I do, but usually come to vastly different conclusions about how to handle things.  They're products of their own time and place, and I sort of let the story write itself that way.

Of course, I've read works by some authors who were able to write decent work without even going into the nuances of their characters' thought processes, and those whose every story embodies their values to the point of being unreadable.  How do you write yours? 

Current Mood: curious
Saturday, March 14th, 2009
7:17 pm
Late Hellos
Hello everyone, sorry I hadn't posted anything sooner.

I'm Threetails, most of my friends even call me "Three" IRL.  I've been a fur since about 2002 and I've been a deep thinker for most of my life.

I don't know how to describe my personal philosophy; it's sort of still under construction, but I guess it borrows ideas from a lot of different philosophies and combines them in a new way.

The gist of it is to allow people to make as many decisions on their own as possible, but always with the pretext of having been informed first.  In that respect I hold truth as the highest virtue because only when the truth is known can people act in a healthy and rational way on their own accord.  I hold prohibition culture as the greatest vice because prohibition- whether it be of a device, a substance, or a way of thinking- automatically assumes that the better part of society is in need of a paternal state.  I see prohibition as the pretext to fascism and all forms of oppression.

I also value a certain benevolence.  People should have consequences for their mistakes, but they should also have the chance to learn from them and move on in their lives without having to revisit them incessantly.  In allowing people to make their own choices it is inevitable that certain mistakes will be made, and rather than legislate against these I believe that these mistakes are the necessary cost of liberty. 

I believe in giving the chance for redemption until such time as someone has proven a pathological offender; I also believe in investing more into good, objective science to permanently cure the pathological offender rather than force them to either become a prisoner or a casualty.  I am convinced that more than the subjective idea of justice, the objective idea of redemption and rehabilitation are the key to allowing people to grow from their mistakes rather than diminish from them. 

I also have some very interesting thoughts about how philosophy and science have divorced from one another, and how the two might eventually come to a point of harmony when certain theories of the mind are reconciled, but I think I'll save that for another entry.

Current Mood: calm
Sunday, December 14th, 2008
6:48 pm
Heavy Question Time: Science in the worst possible hands
In Science class at the moment it's turning into a RS lesson because we're learning about what horrors science can lead to if not watched and put into the wrong hands, and how ironicly that can completely go against the good intenions of the scientists who researched into what influenced it. For example theres a famous poem:

Einstein's eyes
were filled with tears
when he heard about Hiroshima.

Mr. Tamihi
had no eyes left
to show his grief

Nobel must have been ticked when he made dynamite to be used to prevent deaths. Because unlike say volatile gunpowder, which burns rapidly. It detonates, and only under very precise circumstances. But soon after dynamite was re-purosed as a weapon and killed many.

Fritz Haber looked into and revolutionised pesticides which would in the long run save a good BILLION people from the agonising death of starvation. But he allowed that information to go the Germans who used his creations as weapons used in the trenchs and later in the Holocaust gas chambers. Fritz's wife commited suicide in the shame of what her husband inspired.

But heres the question. What if Charles Darwin lived to see the Holocaust? What would he think of the hell that he indirectly concieved? Would he be happy with it?

Current Mood: apathetic
Thursday, December 11th, 2008
5:19 pm

Spend a day in a gay! God damn do I do the most disgusting things! I can't believe we haven't been taken out of our misery!
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008
11:42 am
Day WITH a gay

So with all the people who just don't get what DWOAG means, here's something you can do all day everyday!
Monday, December 8th, 2008
5:07 pm

So I made a video! I hope everyone watches it to see what "hate" is according to Google.
Wednesday, July 16th, 2008
5:33 pm
Someone in a forum I frequent posted this nifty article involving recent scientific work testing the notion of retrocausality: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL

The article is a year and a half old, but still provokes interesting questions. I thought this line was particularly unique: "While it would mean we cannot change the past, it also implies that we cannot change the future."

In other words, if retrocausality is proven to be true, this could also potentially prove the concept of destiny...or at least a semblence of it. However, if conscious minds retrocaused the shaping of the universe to be sufficient for life, as the article propose plausible should retrocausality be proven true, that begs some other questions as well: Why wouldn't conscious minds shape the universe to provide us with more advanced life for ourselves, or life that does not require cessation? Also, this would suggest that all the information of the universe's total existence along the span of all time was already preset--all of our lives were already set in stone, so what greater force set up such a complex weaving of detailed intricacies?

Current Mood: curious
Wednesday, May 14th, 2008
7:37 pm
60 Years old today!
This week mars the 60th birthday of israel (or rather the 60th year since its declaration of independence on 14 May 1948). So if you could send a greetings card or a letter to israel, what would you put on it?

Friday, April 4th, 2008
2:33 pm
The olympic games
With all the problems in tibet, protests regarding the olympic torch and human rights abuses in china which will be hosting the olympic games this year - is it time to change the way the olympics is run? Prehaps maybe - have it permanetly in one country (e.g. athens) and just have different countries paying for it? Or maybe there's another way? Or prehaps the olympics is too commerical and should be axed anyway?

Saturday, March 15th, 2008
7:41 pm
I was thinking about this earlier today when I was playing with my dog and recalling how canines are designed to walk on their toes, and how a 42-pound Husky being supported by only the toe bones of four narrow limbs seems almost too painful to think about, if it were myself in the same design--but then of course, nature had me evolve differently. ;)

Nevertheless, it got me thinking about pain in general, and specifically about how we have this notion of putting people out of their misery when they are suffering and in pain...and it made me realize, aren't we ALL suffering? Aren't we ALL in some degree of pain? Our bodies are not perfect, and they deteriorate over time. Many people endure all sorts of ailments and limitations of both the mind and the body, and yet continue to live fulfilling, successful lives. I'm no doctor, and I haven't studied medicine at all, so I cannot claim to know if this has been addressed at large by the medical community, but it still makes me wonder: Where do we draw the line? If we are all in some sort of pain, and all our experiences are wholly subjective, who is one person to say that another person's pain is too much to bear, that this other person should be put out of his or her alleged misery? Do we let the individual decide? Should there be a standard for a threshold of pain? How do we know if someone has experienced their own personal limits or not, and can we trust their own assessments of themselves? What if they're just a "pansy," or what if they're "trying too hard to be the tough guy"? Is the old adage of "that what doesn't kill me makes me stronger" really a good and true credo by which to live?

Well, at least, I'm glad that the pain of my daily workout is over for now. ;)

Current Mood: relaxed
Monday, March 10th, 2008
11:59 pm
Are there parallels between today and 100 years ago?
Ok, here's something to think about!

Around 100 years ago at the turn of the last century, what happened? The century started off with hope which soon evaporated, there was a large scale war followed by a brief stint of economic growth before finally ending in a cataclysmic war involving all countries.

And you had people back then who although celebrated the turn of the century were unhappy because they saw the current political system in vogue at the time to be somewhat unrepresentitve, old hat - it had its day if you will. And said system had been in existance for a fair degree of time too. Also there was facist/racist literature avaliable then (even before the rise of hitler's party in germany).

Does this not all sound familiar? Isn't a lot of this happening right now? Although it won't be to the same timescales, methods anad styles could we be replaying out what happened 100 years ago in our own time? Are there parallels beween 1900-1939 and 2000- ?

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008
10:51 pm
AwsomeSauce Group! *Geek Moment :P*
FuffyFox here. Im doing my last semester of undergrad study For Political Science, with a concentration in International Policy, and starting in the fall im doing an internship in Washington D.C.! Just wanted to say how glad I am that I found a group of Furries on LJ that are interested in Political matters, international and domestic! ^-^
Saturday, February 23rd, 2008
10:04 pm
Caring for Life
You know, working in a pet store as long as I have, one might presume I had already thought about this issue long ago...but I guess it's one of those things we take for granted so much that it doesn't get a lot of discussion. Anyways, I thought this question would be highly appropriate here (and a good way to hopefully revive this group a bit):

Why do we as humans feel the desire to take care of other species? The concept of keeping and caring for pets and plants has been around for so many centuries--even millenia. We seem to get so much enjoyment out of it...but why? What need does it fulfill? Does this help solidify the hypothesis that our role on this planet is to be stewards of all around us, or is such an attitude what sparked this behavior in the first place? Is it an evolutionary trait? If so, what did evolution have in mind for us by giving us such impulses?

Current Mood: pensive
Saturday, January 26th, 2008
3:05 pm
Music time!
Here's something to do :) . Now I know it really isn't the greatest programme in the world and I know the subject's nothing great (pop music) and well - I'm not into pop at all, especially the junk that's around today. But watch this ....

**Warning: This download is 225MB! (Programme length is roughly 1h30m). The file has been reduced in quality from the main recording which is 2.5GB - about half a DVD!


Which era would you choose - the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s?

Tuesday, January 15th, 2008
1:22 am
Something to do!
Ok, here's an intresting thing for everyfur to do! How's about everyone here makes one political prediction for the year now that we're in Jan 08!

Tuesday, November 13th, 2007
6:22 pm
Problem of Universals
Are there such things as properties, such as “redness,” “whiteness,” “mass,” or “electromagnetic charge?” If so, do multiple things share properties that determine what type of thing they are and what’s predicated of them, i.e. “X and Y are both red/red things because they share redness?”

I say there are properties, but things don’t share them.

Properties can explain why predicates are true of their subjects: water “freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit” because of its properties. Properties make it the kind of thing that it is, and do the kind of things it does. If on the other hand you deny the existence of properties (nominalism), you have to say that water freezes because of the kind of thing that it is, which leads to a dilemma. Does water freeze at 32 degrees Fahrenheit because water is of the type of things that freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, or is water of the type of things that freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit because it freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit?

Denial of properties also leads to trouble with higher order types. For example, a nominalist would try to explain sentences like “red is a color” as meaning “red things are colored things,” but this isn’t an adequate translation: you wouldn’t translate other sentences this way. “Red things are extended things” doesn’t mean “red is an extension.”

How do you explain causation without properties of some sort, anyways?

As for whether or not properties are repeatable/shared by more than one thing (universals), tropes (properties as being particular) seem to have an advantage over universals in terms of simplicity.

With repeatable properties, you have to posit the existence of substances –things that “have attributes” and persists through changes in properties- as well as properties. If you try and say that particular, concrete objects are really just bundles of properties, you’re committed to believing in the Identity of Indiscernibles. That is, for any properties, for any Thing X, and for any Thing Y, if the properties of X are the properties of Y, X is Y. But it’s conceivable that there be two different things with the same properties (see The Identity of Indiscernibles, by Max Black).

Under a trope theory, you don’t have to posit the Identity of Indiscernibles, since two things never have the same properties. Properties aren’t repeatable or sharable. Thus you don’t seem to need two kinds of things, properties and substances, as with Realism. Because of this and the fact that tropes "do the same work as" universals, on account of Ockham's razor we should believe in just tropes.

Sunday, November 11th, 2007
10:25 pm
Short 'n' sweet.....
Ok, this one'll be really short. But I hope it's intresting to talk about. Welfare to work -- are you in favor or against - is it a good or a bad thing?

Thursday, September 27th, 2007
11:46 pm
What's everyone's thoughts on this one?
"Wed ad blocking may not be (entirely) legal"


Take a read, what do you think?

[ << Previous 20 ]
About LiveJournal.com