What do the categories in this forum mean?

[AmbivalentEye]

Because I don't know the true basis of the topics in the forum, and haven't been intellectually exposed to them, I never know where to post something here. The "Right and wrong", "arts", "poltical issues" or "current events" is simple and obvious. I can't really say I know what metaphysics or epistemology...etc. mean. I know I greatly enjoy physics, but by the way the term is used, I doubt it has anything to do with physics. (once again, I'm 14). If you could give me a brief explanation of these others, I'd greatly appreciate it, I'm also trying to see what type of things I would like to study. I'm taking a course on philosophy and another on Psychology next year, but there's so much I'd like to learn. I can't just jump into something like "history of judaism", because I know I won't enjoy it or have any direct use in it. Thanks for your help. Also, if you know any other categories of philosophy that aren't mentioned here and would like to reccomend, I'd like to hear about those too.

Do any of you think any brach of religious studies is worth it? I'm highly interested in buddhism simply because of the "eternal peace" concept and the ideas of "enlightenment" which I don't concider to be true but would like to investigate.

I see there is a class called "logic" in college. If any of you took it, is it good? it sounds good. Also, "non-eucledian geometry", I seem to love the idea of it without having ever seen any part of it. All i know is that it's principles go against the regular math foundations and I love the concept of that. Mainly I'd like to try something different the would benefit me.

Thank you!

[Jason Fowler]

From dictionary.com, the most appropriate meaning for "meta-" was:

Beyond; transcending; more comprehensive

Physics studies the fundamental building building blocks of matter, and what would be more basic and comprehensive than that? Metaphysics studies the fundamental nature of reality.(reality being all that is or exists) Objectivism holds three axioms, or self-validating positions, in the field of metaphysics; existence, consciousness, and identity. To but them into a simple descriptive statement: Things exist, I am aware of them, and they have a certain identity or makeup.

Epistemology is the theory of and nature of knowledge. As you might be thinking now, metaphysics and epistemology are the building blocks of physics and science in general. Objectivism holds reason as man's sole means to knowledge, and that reason integrates the material provided by sense perception into concepts.

For more information visit, here. You might also want to check out the introductory videos to Objectivism.

[stephen_speicher]

I can't really say I know what metaphysics or epistemology...etc. mean.

Metaphysics studies existence as such; not its detailed properties and characteristics -- that is the province of science -- but the general nature of things which exist. Metaphysics asks and answers questions such as "Do things exist independent of me, or are they created within my own mind?"

Epistemology is a theory of knowledge, the study of the means and methods of acquiring and validating that which we know. Epistemology answers questions such as "Can we ever be certain of what we know?"

You might enjoy reading a wonderful little collection of essays written by Ayn Rand, compiled into a book titled Philosophy: Who Needs It. The first essay has the same name as the title of the book, and it will answer many of your questions about what philosophy is, and what is its importance.

I know I greatly enjoy physics ...

So do I. What do you like about physics, and what have you studied?

Do any of you think any brach of religious studies is worth it?

I think the main value in studying religion is in reference to history, to learn the ideas which various religions advocate and what the society and culture looks like when it implements those religious ideas.

I see there is a class called "logic" in college. If any of you took it, is it good?

That depends on where and how it is being taught, and what your goals are. But, in general, when classical logic is taught -- logic in the tradition of the great Greek philosopher Aristotle -- the subject offers you practical knowledge in how to best use your mind for thinking. When more modern logic is being taught -- known as symbolic logic -- the subject is of less practical value for thinking, but more necessary if you want to study and understand what some modern-day philosophers and mathematical logicians do.

Also, "non-eucledian geometry", I seem to love the idea of it without having ever seen any part of it. All i know is that it's principles go against the regular math foundations

Not really. Non-Euclidean geometry is simply a geometry which starts from axioms which are much different than the axioms that define standard Euclidean geometry. It is not that they "go against" other foundational mathematics, just that they are different. There are many different kinds of geometries that mathematicians and physicsts study and utilize.

For a while after non-Euclidean geometry was invented, it remained an interesting peculiarity of mathematics. Years later Einstein utilized non-Euclidean geometry in the development of his general thoery of relativity, and suddenly this abstract mathematics had a very practical application.

Mainly I'd like to try something different the would benefit me.

Try reading more of Ayn Rand.

[AmbivalentEye]

Stephen,

I read a book a few months ago calld "The nature of Reality" , and it hadd the entire history of Physics and it's basic principles. Usually scince books annoy me. But I was hooked to this one. I read t cover to cover and have many notes. It said stuff about how the atom was discovered and how they(scientists) were debating over the nature of mater, and so scientist everywhere found particles smaller than a nucleus, and then smaller than protons and on and on....until they realized there might not be some beginning or foundation to matter. It began to imply that it it eternal within itself as well as, as a whole. I've always beleived in the concept of "A universe in a grain of sand", or that the solar system might be one millimeter of thread on a blose some person is wearing. It's amazing, and drives me to seek more ideas. I was introduced to the superstring theory, whcih is till very abstract in my mind, but the basic idea is logical: everything made of "strings" of energy. Which only sends me off thinking about telekinesis and all those concepts of...if I accept that I and a metal spoon are created of the same fundamental things(to not say elements), then I will be able to control, or rather use that spoon to whatever purpose I wish, whether it be bending it, or making it move simply by willing it. I get really in depth about thoughts like this. There's much more stuff. Like how they still can't put "gravity" into the equation of all they other forces they figured out. AGHH, I'm tounge tied. I'm tired. But yes, this is basically what I like about it. I like how it offers me so many possibilities, I'm impervious to whether there is an answer or not. I don't want the answers to the universe. You may call it ignorence. This is merely my preference. I've been led to beleive in stuff like.:There could be aliens...somewhee, and maybe they even came, but the people that saw them, asked what the answer to everything was, and when they heard it...they either went insane, or died. To me, this makes sense. It is my beleif that there are things we are not meant to know...and by pushing our limits, humans are only attempting to be what they can never become: A God.

[dondigitalia]

It is my beleif that there are things we are not meant to know...and by pushing our limits, humans are only attempting to be what they can never become: A God.

You are right that man can never be God (in the sense of omnipotence and omniscience).

But man IS meant to gain as much knowledge of and exercise as much control over reality as possible. That doesn't mean we are trying to be God; it means we are living as rational animals.

[AshRyan]

It is my beleif that there are things we are not meant to know...

That's the biggest staple cop-out of irrationalists, and particularly mystics, everywhere. Can you justify that claim, or are you in the habit of making statements solely on the basis of your emotions?

[stephen_speicher]

Stephen, ...

Permit me to make a suggestion. This is not meant to be critical, but rather to appeal to your own self-interest in that I assume you would like to have your posts read and responded to. I for one find it very difficult to read what you write, and I would like to make a few suggestions meant to be helpful.

(1) It would be easier to read and understand your thoughts if you wrote more succinctly. Try to reduce your ideas to a few essentials.

(2) Separate out your ideas instead of running them together. Try perhaps to restrict each post to no more than one or two basic ideas.

(3) Try to break up what you write into distinct paragraphs, each paragraph having sentences that are connected both by logic and context.

If you follow (1) and (2) then (3) will be real easy.

As I said, just a few suggestions meant to be helpful ...

[DavidOdden]

I've always beleived in the concept of "A universe in a grain of sand", or that the solar system might be one millimeter of thread on a blose some person is wearing.

I suggest that you rethink that idea a bit more critically. Given that the universe is "the totality of what is", the implication of "a universe in a grain of sand" is a contradiction because it implies that "everything" can be contained in something that is only a part of everything. It's also pretty easy to show that the solar system is not one millimeter of thread: pick up any object 1 mm or larger and you can see that it isn't the same size as the whole solar system.

Okay, maybe you didn't mean that literally, but your statement is kind of confusing since then I don't know what you did mean. Perhaps simply that there is great complexity to the universe at all scales? Zooming in on a grain of sand and revealing a complex solar system contained therein makes for great special effects, but in reality, there isn't enough mass in a grain of sand to have sustained nuclear fusion. Whether or not one finds the universe-in-sand idea to be cool, the important question is, is it real? The answer is, no. Especially for someone with an interest in physics, I would urge you to concentrate on what actually is.

I've been led to beleive in stuff like.:There could be aliens...somewhee, and maybe they even came, but the people that saw them, asked what the answer to everything was, and when they heard it...they either went insane, or died. To me, this makes sense.

Why does this make sense to you? Which part makes sense to you? I'm perfectly willing to imagine that there are sentient beings in some other solar system, although that is purely imaginary. But there is, in my opinion, not the least smattering of evidence for any such outer space aliens (much less aliens who can communicate with humans, even much less so ones with the knowledge of some terrible secret of the universe that drives man insane to year it).

Imagination is a great thing; but you shouldn't let it overpower reason. I suspect you don't really believe in space aliens who come to earth and drive men mad by revealing the answer to the fundamental question. If you really do, would you care to justify that belief here? If not, what was that statement intended to stand in for -- something that you actually believe? The answer to the fundamental question, btw, is "Existence exists".

Dave Odden

[stephen_speicher]

Especially for someone with an interest in physics, I would urge you to concentrate on what actually is.

Sage advice.

I have been curious for some time about this strange notion of a universe within a universe and have wondered about its historical roots. One day perhaps I will take the time to do the research, but if anyone is aware of the historical facts, I would love to know them. You would think that such a notion might belong to modern-day science fiction, but I strongly suspect that the roots are to be found in the writings of the Ancients.

[AmbivalentEye]

see now that's what annoys me about this site. everyone takes every single word so literally! I personally live by similies and metaphors which I get denounced for when I say anithing here because it's almost as if nobody here believes in a simple saying. I was first attracted to all of objectivism because of the astounding writter that Ayn Rand was. I too am a writter and hope to publish something one day, but I'll never get anywhere if my biggest problem is that the simplest or and probably greater intellectual of my readers doesn't even understand the concept of "a universe in a grain of sand". I mean, I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most have heard and understood that. Perhaps I'm insane for assuming so.

[AmbivalentEye]

you know what Ash Ryan! It's true, I do seem to hold my emotions above my thoughts because it's all that currently affects me and that gives me reason to stay alive.

If you asked, why do you live?

I would answer: "Because I can feel!"

I don't know how many would understand trhat. I know ayn rand would have because I too feel the same way about the word "LIFE", as others feel about the term "God". Life is nothing without my ability to feel it, or so I think. Damn me if that is wrong. Prove to me otherwise!

[AmbivalentEye]

You are right that man can never be God (in the sense of omnipotence and omniscience).

But man IS meant to gain as much knowledge of and exercise as much control over reality as possible. That doesn't mean we are trying to be God; it means we are living as rational animals.

I agree with you entirely. I promise I didn't mean to imply anything different.

[AmbivalentEye]

stephen, thanks for your suggestion, but I guess I also have the liberty to say:

God damn the laws of English Literature!

Forgive me, those who get insulted by my comment.

[DavidOdden]

see now that's what annoys me about this site. everyone takes every single word so literally! I personally live by similies and metaphors which I get denounced for when I say anithing here because it's almost as if nobody here believes in a simple saying. I was first attracted to all of objectivism because of the astounding writter that Ayn Rand was. I too am a writter and hope to publish something one day, but I'll never get anywhere if my biggest problem is that the simplest or and probably greater intellectual of my readers doesn't even understand the concept of "a universe in a grain of sand". I mean, I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most have heard and understood that. Perhaps I'm insane for assuming so.

So what you're saying is that you didn't mean anything in particular when you made your earlier comments? Or maybe, you thought it would be cool to make it a guessing game, so that we could try to guess what you meant? Like when you say "everyone here takes every word so literally", you are actually not speaking the truth, you're just using a metaphor.

Metaphot is perfectly fine if your intent is not to speak the truth in a fashion that others could guess at, so I wouldn't denounce you as a metaphor-wielding monster. Metaphor is perfectly fine in fiction, but it's conventional to distinguish fiction from non-fiction. You could try, for example, by saying "Hey, folks, don't take my words literally, I'm trying out a novel!".

The hackneyed "universe in a grain of sand" metaphor is so stale that the FDA has issued a blanket recall for any product that has come in contact with it. I apologize for not having recognised that you were making at attempt to try out your literary skills, and were not trying to say something that should be understood directly.

Also, you might work on the part of recognising when a reader tells you that your were spouting something that isn't sense. Especially if a reader does actually say that what you're saying doesn't have any clearly identifiable meaning.

[stephen_speicher]

The hackneyed "universe in a grain of sand" metaphor is so stale that the FDA has issued a blanket recall for any product that has come in contact with it.

I do love your sense of humor, Dave.

[RationalBiker]

everyone takes every single word so literally!

Would you not be equally upset if they misinterpret your implied meaning as well? The addage, "Say what you mean, and mean what you say" has never been more prevalent on any other board I have visited.

In order for communication to be effective, it doesn't end just because you understood what you said. The other party(s) must also understand. If you leave your statements open to interpretation, invariably they will be interpreted incorrectly by someone.

I have recognized this issue in my own writing and understanding from time to time. That is one reason why I just bought a book on critical thinking, along with both of Rand's books on writing. (The Art of Non-Fiction and The Art of Fiction)

If I can eliminate or at least reduce the possibility of a misunderstanding on my part in a conversation, I think that is a good thing.

VES

[AshRyan]

you know what Ash Ryan! It's true, I do seem to hold my emotions above my thoughts because it's all that currently affects me and that gives me reason to stay alive.

If you asked, why do you live?

I would answer: "Because I can feel!"

I don't know how many would understand trhat. I know ayn rand would have because I too feel the same way about the word "LIFE", as others feel about the term "God". Life is nothing without my ability to feel it, or so I think. Damn me if that is wrong. Prove to me otherwise!

How can I possibly prove anything to you one way or the other when you elevate your emotions above reason? You will just believe whatever you feel like no matter how airtight a proof I offer anyway...