Brain goes *pop*

[Mr.Dave]

So I slept for two hours last night because I had to research and write a 1500 word paper for today. I finished an hour ago after drinking a pot of coffee and then moved on to some philosophy. My mind was fragile to begin with but holy shit.

"I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived. If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exost, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived - namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived that exists. I cannot conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists."

*kaboom*

Sorry if this is in the wrong section. I can hardly spell my own name right now.

[filipmaj]

what the... :031:

[LeeBrat]

wow....thats umm...confuziling

[Mr.Dave]

I think I'm gonna have to sleep on that.

[lou_belle]

if u'r brain goes *pop*
go to the doctor immediately~

[Draven GD]

that is quite possibly the most confusing thing ever conceived. how do you even conceive of something so unconceiveable. the conception of that post surpassed all conciveable lenghs of comprehention. but i managed to concive some kind of idea, just hope it is the concept i am suppost to believe. :P

[Mr.Dave]

It's a conceptual ontological argument.

Here's another version simplified a little:

God is a being which has every perfection. Existence is a perfection. Hence God exists.

Doesn't quite cut it for me.

[sNyx]

now to smoke a joint and read it for the next few hours..

[Mr.Dave]

The key is sleep dep my friend. It's all starting to make sense as I settle into my happy delerium.

It's basically all a crock of shit unless you're already convinced that God exists and are adept at ignoring logical argument.

Here's another:
It is possible that God exists. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. Hence, it is necessary that God exists. Hence, God exists.

Myles, if you want a nice stoned mindfuck, check this out:
http://www.shef.ca.uk/personal/a/ami.../texts/mb.html

Took me a few rounds, but it's actually a really cool way to think about interpersonal relationships. Take "Thou" to be an informal (personal) version of "you".

[anarchy_kittie]

wow man you guys use a lot of words that i didn't even know existed! as for the whole brain pop i agree with the fact that if your brain does infact pop, you should go to the doctor.

[sNyx]

http://www.shef.ca.uk/personal/a/ami.../texts/mb.html

-broken linky
repost plz :)

[Mr.Dave]

Crapola.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/personal/a/ami.../texts/mb.html

[Goat]

[/quote]God is a being which has every perfection. Existence is a perfection. Hence God exists.[/quote

How is existence perfection?

[Mr.Dave]

Got me man.

Check that link Max. Neato.

[Goat]

I got a lot of "Everything is relative" out of that.
And a whole bunch of "accept 'self' and what's relative to self" for path to inner peace.
Hurts the brain.
You wrote a 1500 word essay on that?

[anarchy_kittie]

i agree, i feel that nothing is truly perfect, but then again everything altogether is perfect b/c we do exist and we had to get here some way. personally i dont think it was god, i believe in scientific facts but thats just my opinion

[anarchy_kittie]

How is existence perfection?[/quote] <----|
|
|
as to what my last message is about _____|

[Goat]

nothing is truly perfect

That's the point.
It's the whole, man is not perfect hence man cannot create a perfect god/idea/government etc, catch 22 thing.
//faith

[anarchy_kittie]

agreed!!!!

[acidic_liquid]

Wheee don't you just LOVE philosophy? I have a 1200 word paper due tomorrow. I'm at 500. This is mine.

Important Pre-amble: Consider what happens in the following scenario. You have three buckets in front of you, one with cold water in it, one with hot, and the third with tepid (room temperature). For one minute, you immerse your left hand in the hot water and your right hand in the cold. Then you place both hands simultaneously in the tepid water.

You are to pick one of the following two topics:

1. Locke argues that the fact that the sensations you feel are different is support for his view that there is a distinction between ideas and qualities in the world. (See Locke, Book II, Chapter VIII, §21, p. 187.) How is this supposed to work, and does it? Whether you think it works or not, be sure to raise one objection, then either to answer it or to show how it tells against Locke.

2. Berkeley argues that the fact that the sensations you feel are different is support for his view that there is no distinction between ideas and qualities in the world. (See Berkeley, early in the First Dialogue, p. 206.) How is this supposed to work, and does it? Whether you think it works or not, be sure to raise one objection, then either to answer it or to show how it tells against Berkeley

BLAH.

[acidic_liquid]

Originally Posted by Mr.Dave

It's a conceptual ontological argument.

Here's another version simplified a little:

God is a being which has every perfection. Existence is a perfection. Hence God exists.

Doesn't quite cut it for me.

I thought it was more like there is a great being which nothing else can equal (God). And he exists because this great being is unequaled. If this unequaled being doesn't exist, then there will be greater beings. But since there's nothing greater than the greatest being, God exists.

I say BLAH.

[Mr.Dave]

No you got it. The ontological argument is just a structure.

[Mr.Dave]

Originally Posted by Goat

I got a lot of "Everything is relative" out of that.
And a whole bunch of "accept 'self' and what's relative to self" for path to inner peace.
Hurts the brain.
You wrote a 1500 word essay on that?

It was more geared towards the way you view the things/people with which/whom you interact. To see someone as a Thou is to see them as a life rather than a thing. Kind of a wierd way to say don't objectify people.

The whole God relationship can be made or not.

[acidic_liquid]

Originally Posted by Mr.Dave

No you got it. The ontological argument is just a structure.

Yay. Not so dumb after all :)