i’m looking for information about what is the most fundamental things that people might want to prove in life?
where do you think i can find opinions from a variety of people about this question?
there is any kind of common agreement for an answer for this question?

i will glad for responses,

truth, knowledge, happiness…

I’ve found this forum to be an excellent source for discovering my own & others views on deep historical questions such as these.

retrospy - 12 September 2007 04:00 PM

truth, knowledge, happiness…

I’ve found this forum to be an excellent source for discovering my own & others views on deep historical questions such as these.

i would like to get specific examples.

if nothing have been proved, what steps people might want to take?

Maybe they want to prove to themselves that their lives are worth living?

ppii - 12 September 2007 09:43 PM

i would like to get specific examples.

if nothing have been proved, what steps people might want to take?

What do you mean by “proved”?

To a certain extent, all of this involves arguments and discussions. You may not find some particular argument persuasive, but someone else might. The only things we can ever really “prove” are logical or mathematical formulae. The rest is all a matter of weighing the evidence. So the steps you can take are to immerse yourself in the arguments and decide which you think are good ones.

and what if people feel that communication “as whole” is not easy so they are not satisfied with arguments?

can you refer me to “philosophers” that generalized arguments and said that arguments is not necessarily something that ever been known to be maintained well in practice?

i’m talking about the lack of communication and what people are doing to make communication in this world better.

maybe people can refer me to philosophers who talk about the issue of “Limitations of definition”.

ppii,

Can you explain more about your intent? Can you give some examples?

ppii - 12 September 2007 11:13 PM

and what if people feel that communication “as whole” is not easy so they are not satisfied with arguments?

can you refer me to “philosophers” that generalized arguments and said that arguments is not necessarily something that ever been known to be maintained well in practice?

i’m talking about the lack of communication and what people are doing to make communication in this world better.

maybe people can refer me to philosophers who talk about the issue of “Limitations of definition”.

I’m not sure what you mean. WVO Quine and Donald Davidson have talked at some length about the translation problem—that you can’t translate precisely from one language to another—and that all meaning involves a sort of interpretation.

But if your concern is with communication per se, I’m not sure what good it would be for me to attempt to communicate to you my thoughts on it. If you are here in a public forum chatting with others, presumably it’s because you think there’s some use to communication, and that you can get something out of it.

As for arguments being maintained in practice: one thing that I have attempted to reinforce here on the forum is that we should not attempt to argue one thing in philosophical discussions and hold a different belief in our everyday practice. E.g., we should not be arguing that free will does not exist when we are in front of philosophers and then speak as though we did something freely in our everyday life. We should aim to use words the same way whether we are arguing about them philosophically or whether we are chatting about them with the neighbors. That way we don’t get into so many misunderstandings.

The only problems are with terms that are too vague; where it is an aid to communication to fix on a sort of standard definition for the purposes of argument. E.g., with terms like “God”, “spirituality”, etc., it may be helpful to be very precise about what we are talking about when arguing carefully. This may sometimes mean that we talk past the neighbors ... but so long as we are ourselves clear about what we mean by the terms, use them consistently, and can state clearly our definitions when asked, I don’t see that there are any deep problems in communication.

If, on the other hand, you are talking about communication in a political context, then the most important thing, it seems to me, is the willingness to compromise. But that isn’t an issue about words, so much as it is an issue of flexibility.

ppii - 12 September 2007 11:13 PM

and what if people feel that communication “as whole” is not easy so they are not satisfied with arguments?

can you refer me to “philosophers” that generalized arguments and said that arguments is not necessarily something that ever been known to be maintained well in practice?

i’m talking about the lack of communication and what people are doing to make communication in this world better.

maybe people can refer me to philosophers who talk about the issue of “Limitations of definition”.

Indeed, the sun shines brighter then words I’ve written down suggesting its light.

Perhaps the best way to “communicate” is through action. Do actions not speak louder then words?

ppii,

Just yesterday I heard an interview with Steven Pinker concerning ideas he offers in his new book, The Thought Of Stuff.

Here is a description of what the book offers from his web site -  http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/

The Stuff of Thought is a revelation. In this exhilarating new book, Steven Pinker analyzes how our words relate to thoughts and to the world around us and reveals what this tells us about ourselves.

How does a mind that evolved to think about rocks and plants and enemies think about love and physics and democracy? Why do we threaten and bribe and seduce in such elaborate, often comical ways? How can a choice of metaphors start a war, impeach a president, or win an election? Why do people impose taboos on topics like sex, excretion, and the divine? What does the peculiar syntax of swearing (just what does the “fuck” in “fuck you” actually mean?) tell us about ourselves? Why do some names thrive while others fall out of circulation? How do we control the amount of information that we absorb? And what good does this actually do us? Pinker answers all these questions and many, many more. He shows us that language really can tell us unexpected and fascinating things about ourselves.

I don’t know if that is what you’re looking for, but from some of the words you use, it seems it may be.

By the way, the first sentence: “How does a mind that evolved… ” would be better stated with the word “brain”. It is the brain that thinks.

Stephen Pinker is starting his new book tour.  You can check his website for lecture times & places.  I know he will be at the Minneapolis public library in one week on the 20th.

I think the example I pointed out in the sentence: “How does a mind that evolved to think…” : can be expounded upon that relates to another discussion I am having in the thread “mind is brain”.

How is “mind” being defined in the sentence? If I were to define “mind” as “thoughts, feelings, rememberence, intuition, qualia etc. Then the phrase “a mind that evolved to think” is nonsensical. A “brain that evolved to think” makes sense. The brain has evolved structurally, and I doubt we can pin point a time when the brain was “complete”.

Part of this discussion I think relates also to attempts lately to stigmatize religious beliefs. As in, what are beliefs, why are some retained and others abandoned, what changes in the brain must take place to reinterpret beliefs, etc. etc.

I am wondering quite a bit lately that reliance of “selfish gene” and “meme” theories is causing an entrenched mind set. The idea of stigmatizing certain religious beliefs based on the assumption they account for “dangers” is limited and possibly dangerous within itself.  This idea seems to mitigate to a large degree the social pressures and the reinforcements found.

zarcus - 13 September 2007 01:20 PM

I think the example I pointed out in the sentence: “How does a mind that evolved to think…” : can be expounded upon that relates to another discussion I am having in the thread “mind is brain”.

How is “mind” being defined in the sentence? If I were to define “mind” as “thoughts, feelings, rememberence, intuition, qualia etc. Then the phrase “a mind that evolved to think” is nonsensical. A “brain that evolved to think” makes sense. The brain has evolved structurally, and I doubt we can pin point a time when the brain was “complete”.

Part of this discussion I think relates also to attempts lately to stigmatize religious beliefs. As in, what are beliefs, why are some retained and others abandoned, what changes in the brain must take place to reinterpret beliefs, etc. etc.

I am wondering quite a bit lately that reliance of “selfish gene” and “meme” theories is causing an entrenched mind set. The idea of stigmatizing certain religious beliefs based on the assumption they account for “dangers” is limited and possibly dangerous within itself.  This idea seems to mitigate to a large degree the social pressures and the reinforcements found.

Perhaps ones instinct for survival may also have some dictation over what one believes. I wonder if this instinct for survival subconsciously contributes to the popular belief in “life everlasting.”

ppii - 12 September 2007 03:44 PM

i’m looking for information about what is the most fundamental things that people might want to prove in life?
where do you think i can find opinions from a variety of people about this question?
there is any kind of common agreement for an answer for this question?

i will glad for responses,

you want opinions from a variety of people and also common agreement for an answer?
try science.

Your question begets mine.  Why would I ever concern myself with proving anything to anybody?  If I were to even entertain this ,,I would have to have a willing audience to whatever it is I feel a need to prove.  As skepticdave says, I’d prolly want to prove facts about the nature of our human brains and the perceptual quirks of it.

2nd.  I can tell you what I wouldn’t want to have to prove.  I hope I never have to prove my innocence (if falsely accused) in a court of law with a jury of my so called peers.
That keeps me in line lemme tell ya.  Average stupidity is at an all time high (in the US) and rising in my opinion.  lol Statistics bear this out.