Superman Prime (emo) vs. Thanos w/ tech

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Kutulu
Fight takes place on a deserted planetoid. No BFR, fight is to the death.

Superman Prime (formerly known as Superboy Prime) starts off fully rested and charged up, fight is on a planet near a yellow sun (equidistant to how far Earth is from our sun).

Thanos starts off with his usual assortment of gadgets and tech. This is the last incarnation of Thanos before he died from Drax (so in other words, post powerup where he was able to blast Galactus from his ship).

Who takes it?

llagrok
Why do you label Superman Prime emo?

Are we supposed to list everything that's wrong with a character? If so, Thanos' list would be huge. Xbox huge and it would be freaking longer than longcat.

NiņoAraņa
Originally posted by llagrok
Why do you label Superman Prime emo?

Are we supposed to list everything that's wrong with a character? If so, Thanos' list would be huge. Xbox huge and it would be freaking longer than longcat. it "distinguishes" this Superman Prime from the one from the future.

Galan007
Originally posted by llagrok
Why do you label Superman Prime emo? Because he can be a crying little b*tch at times? ermm

llagrok
Originally posted by Galan007
Because he can be a crying little b*tch at times? ermm

You'd cry if Power Girl threatened to fry your noodles.

Kutulu
Originally posted by llagrok
Why do you label Superman Prime emo?

Are we supposed to list everything that's wrong with a character? If so, Thanos' list would be huge. Xbox huge and it would be freaking longer than longcat.

I refer to him as emo because in the last issue of GLC it looked like he was wearing black lipstick when he charged in on Yat / Ion.

To top it off, he does the equivilant of cutting himself, by burning a big S into his chest. Black lipstick + burning yourself to look cool = emo in my book.

Kutulu

nvrbeenwthagirl
Just CAll him SBP like we always have. He's a teen who's entire universe has been destroyed. He is behaving exactly like anyone of us would. And He's handling it much better than a full grown person would.

Kutulu
Originally posted by nvrbeenwthagirl
Just CAll him SBP like we always have. He's a teen who's entire universe has been destroyed. He is behaving exactly like anyone of us would. And He's handling it much better than a full grown person would.

orly

nvrbeenwthagirl
Originally posted by Kutulu
orly

Just imagine if not your entire world, but your family, friends, reputation, UNIVERSE didn't just die, but NEVER existed. And then you were locked up in a time bubble for billions of years as the universe was reborn over at least twice, and you were a teen. That is enough to drive anyone insane.

Kutulu
Originally posted by nvrbeenwthagirl
Just imagine if not your entire world, but your family, friends, reputation, UNIVERSE didn't just die, but NEVER existed. And then you were locked up in a time bubble for billions of years as the universe was reborn over at least twice, and you were a teen. That is enough to drive anyone insane.

So where does putting on black lipstick and cutting yourself come in? The only way he could be more emo would be by listening to Fallout Boy and changing his costume to all dark colors.

nvrbeenwthagirl
Originally posted by Kutulu
So where does putting on black lipstick and cutting yourself come in?

I've seen teens do far worse for far less.

Galan007
Originally posted by nvrbeenwthagirl
He's a teen who's entire universe has been destroyed. He is behaving exactly like anyone of us would. And He's handling it much better than a full grown person would. I've never met anyone who's Universe was destroyed -- I just don't get out enough I guess.

sdurug

Kutulu
Originally posted by nvrbeenwthagirl
I've seen teens do far worse for far less.

Was this during your local Prometheus Society chapter gathering, after someone had trouble studying Cobham's thesis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobham%27s_thesis

Or was it during your time at the Epimetheus Society, when one of your 160+ IQ buddies was studying up on P=NP?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%3Dnp

Kutulu
Originally posted by Galan007
I've never met anyone who's Universe was destroyed -- I just don't get out enough I guess.

sdurug

He probably calculated it out with his 163 IQ in between shareholder meetings for the company that he runs, since he said he's a CEO.

After all, CEO's keep such busy schedules, it's hard to find time to post in a comic book forum.

nvrbeenwthagirl
Originally posted by Kutulu
He probably calculated it out with his 163 IQ in between shareholder meetings for the company that he runs, since he said he's a CEO.

After all, CEO's keep such busy schedules, it's hard to find time to post in a comic book forum.

It's easy when you have assistants, and take a day off for a death in the family. wink

Soljer
Originally posted by nvrbeenwthagirl
It's easy when you have assistants, and take a day off for a death in the family. wink

Wow, you seem to have a huge family, though it's numbers seem to be rapidly dwindling.

Ouallada
I'm disturbed that arguing SBP vs Thanos seems to take precedence over paying last respects and funeral rites.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Galan007
Because he can be a crying little b*tch at times? ermm Even the good guys in dc mock him. I love prime but he is a bich, A tough bich but still a bich.

KK the Great
Thanos will be turning Falloutboy Prime into his new herald.

KK the Great
Originally posted by Soljer
Wow, you seem to have a huge family, though it's numbers seem to be rapidly dwindling.

You have to think, they're competing for a potentially lucrative inheritance from nvr one day. It is only fitting that they'd be killing each other off to ensure a larger individual slice of the pie.

Bad Ash231
Originally posted by Galan007
Because he can be a crying little b*tch at times? ermm

Like Christoper Reeves/Superman when Lois died? 131fist

KK the Great
Originally posted by Bad Ash231
Like Christoper Reeves/Superman when Lois died? 131fist

Sad isn't the same as menstrual.

Galan007
Originally posted by Bad Ash231
Like Christoper Reeves/Superman when Lois died? 131fist Yeah but at least he made teh world spin backward!! hitlershakefist

Alfheim
Originally posted by Galan007
Because he can be a crying little b*tch at times? ermm

Well yeah if your whole world was destroyed and you had to stay in some messed up dimension you'd cry like b*tch sometimes too.

Kutulu
Originally posted by Alfheim
Well yeah if your whole world was destroyed and you had to stay in some messed up dimension you'd cry like b*tch sometimes too.

But would you put on black lipstick and cut / burn yourself?

KK the Great
Originally posted by Alfheim
Well yeah if your whole world was destroyed and you had to stay in some messed up dimension you'd cry like b*tch sometimes too.

We can come up with a thousand explanations for why Hitler was the way he was, too, but I'm not going to throw my support behind the guy.

Alfheim
Originally posted by KK the Great
We can come up with a thousand explanations for why Hitler was the way he was, too, but I'm not going to throw my support behind the guy.


Hey im not saying what he did was good but....when you got your whole universe destroyed and end up in a dimension that drives you mad come back and talk to me. When you havent gone through what somebody else has gone through its easy to sit there and judge. Hell the guy used to be a hero obvoulsy hes not completley right in the head and he wasnt fully mature either. I dont think you can compare SBP to Hitler. SBP used to be a hero.

Originally posted by Kutulu
But would you put on black lipstick and cut / burn yourself?

No but I might go nuts. Part of the problem is that the dimension made him slightly mad...from what I gathered.

P.S. Havent read the comics with him in it. Just read his bio and read lots of scans. I might have some of my facts wrong but I think I got a general idea, so I can stand to be corrected.

Galan007
Originally posted by Alfheim
Well yeah if your whole world was destroyed and you had to stay in some messed up dimension you'd cry like b*tch sometimes too. How do you know my world hasn't been destroyed?
herbhappy

Ouallada
Originally posted by Galan007
How do you know my world hasn't been destroyed?
herbhappy

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff281/twol84/Conspiracy-Theories.jpg

Bad Ash231
Originally posted by Galan007
How do you know my world hasn't been destroyed?
herbhappy

The Matrix.


Nuff said.


biscuits

Ouallada
Originally posted by Bad Ash231
The Matrix.


Nuff said.


biscuits

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff281/twol84/CAZQFCWI.jpg

Cogito ergo sum.

Galan007
Originally posted by Ouallada
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff281/twol84/CAZQFCWI.jpg

Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am?

Wats dat haf 2 due wis teh Matricks? vegetajv2

Bad Ash231
Originally posted by Ouallada
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff281/twol84/CAZQFCWI.jpg

Cogito ergo sum.

oh

Ouallada
Originally posted by Galan007
I think, therefore I am?

Wats dat haf 2 due wis teh Matricks? vegetajv2

Yup. Meh, if you believe Descartes, if you think, you exist. Context doesn't matter. Kinda like the argument South Park's Imaginationland was putting forward in part3.

Soljer
Originally posted by Ouallada
Yup. Meh, if you believe Descartes, if you think, you exist. Context doesn't matter. Kinda like the argument South Park's Imaginationland was putting forward in part3.

You don't have to believe Descartes for it to be true.

The fact that you think means you exist.

KK the Great
Originally posted by Soljer
The fact that you think means you exist.

It should be noted that the reverse is not always true.

Soljer
Originally posted by KK the Great
It should be noted that the reverse is not always true.

Unfortunately enough - but why note that? An implication isn't equivalent to it's converse.

Ouallada
Originally posted by Soljer
You don't have to believe Descartes for it to be true.

The fact that you think means you exist.

That's just giving credit to the guy when it was his philosophies that are discussed.

The most common flaw there is that you have two steps in your argument:

1) You think.
2) You exist.

The bridge between 1) and 2) is syllogistic. Not to mention the act of thinking requires relativising, but the existence of anything besides the first person cannot be proven without a third person perspective, meaning for disbelievers, this particular philosophy uses the subjective content of one's mind to prove the absolute reality of everything else.

KK the Great
Originally posted by Soljer
Unfortunately enough - but why note that? An implication isn't equivalent to it's converse.

I was just catching up on another thread, so it was fresh in my mind.

Soljer
Originally posted by Ouallada
That's just giving credit to the guy when it was his philosophies that are discussed.

The most common flaw there is that you have two steps in your argument:

1) You think.
2) You exist.

The bridge between 1) and 2) is syllogistic. Not to mention the act of thinking requires relativising, but the existence of anything besides the first person cannot be proven without a third person perspective, meaning for disbelievers, this particular philosophy uses the subjective content of one's mind to prove the absolute reality of everything else.

No, it doesn't. All this theory does is prove your own existence. I am currently thinking, so I know that I exist. Whether I exist in this form or another is undetermined. Whether the world around me exists as I perceive it? undetermined. Whether you exist? These other posters? Undetermined.

All I know for certain is that I exist in some shape or form, even if the 'life' I perceive is just a long 'dream' a higher consciousness is experiencing, I still exist as a part of that consciousness.

Galan007
Originally posted by Soljer
No, it doesn't. All this theory does is prove your own existence. I am currently thinking, so I know that I exist. If thinking = existence -- does existence = thinking? umm

Soljer
Originally posted by Galan007
If thinking = existence -- does existence = thinking? umm

No.

Theoretically speaking, something can exist without cognition.

Something cannot perceive without existing, however.

Galan007
Originally posted by Soljer
No.

Theoretically speaking, something can exist without cognition. So... Thinking does not equal existence then. stick out tongue

Ouallada
That is with the assumption that thinking leads to existence, something that Descartes has admitted to not always hold true. Even the instantiation principle does not apply perfectly. The principle is based on logic. Logic is based on? It is a chicken/egg argument, because of the argument that humanity is fundamentally imperfect. If logic can be illusionary (easy examples of this include a person mistaking a smell for pot roast when none exists in the vicinity), then the logic on which the instantiation principle is based on can be imperfect, and its acceptance requires faith, which is unacceptable for absolutes.

Moreover, if you have read about his theories, the logic is basically that we are all deceived, but that we need to exist to be deceived. As such, we have the cartesian circle. God exists. He guarantees that what I perceive is true. I perceive God's existence (cogito ergo sum is a base on which his more divinal theories are argued). God exists. Repeat.

I would tend to agree with the cogito, but the fact that it is not absolute means that "I think, therefore I am" is flawed. It is notable that the matrix etc were basically derived from an offshoot of Descartes' theories, which is why I started on him in the first place.

Ouallada
Originally posted by Galan007
So... Thinking does not equal existence then. stick out tongue

Basically, the sum of it is that it cannot be absolutely proved that thinking MUST equal existence, which is the logical flaw in the cogito.

TricksterPriest
But if something can conceive of the idea of self and is aware that it exists, doesn't that prove it's existence?

Ouallada
It SHOULD, but not absolutely. A person better qualified than myself could put forward a much better case, but I captured the gist of what criticisms of the cogito focus on.

Kutulu
Love that lipstick.

Now that I look closer, it even looks like he's wearing eyeliner.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Galan007
How do you know my world hasn't been destroyed?
herbhappy

Well im pretty sure your universe hasnt been destroyed and you helped to save other universes and im pretty sure you havent had to spend a long time in a dimension that drives you nuts.....

If thats what you meant metaphorically....

Originally posted by Ouallada
That is with the assumption that thinking leads to existence, something that Descartes has admitted to not always hold true. Even the instantiation principle does not apply perfectly. The principle is based on logic. Logic is based on? It is a chicken/egg argument, because of the argument that humanity is fundamentally imperfect. If logic can be illusionary (easy examples of this include a person mistaking a smell for pot roast when none exists in the vicinity), then the logic on which the instantiation principle is based on can be imperfect, and its acceptance requires faith, which is unacceptable for absolutes.

Moreover, if you have read about his theories, the logic is basically that we are all deceived, but that we need to exist to be deceived. As such, we have the cartesian circle. God exists. He guarantees that what I perceive is true. I perceive God's existence (cogito ergo sum is a base on which his more divinal theories are argued). God exists. Repeat.

I would tend to agree with the cogito, but the fact that it is not absolute means that "I think, therefore I am" is flawed. It is notable that the matrix etc were basically derived from an offshoot of Descartes' theories, which is why I started on him in the first place.

I dont think you can prove anything absolutely.

NiņoAraņa
Originally posted by Kutulu
Love that lipstick.

Now that I look closer, it even looks like he's wearing eyeliner. you're prejudice against emotional guys. haermm

Soljer
Originally posted by Alfheim


I dont think you can prove anything absolutely.

roll eyes (sarcastic).

That is the point of the exercise. You throw out anything subjective, any and everything that you can doubt, and what are you left with?

The fact that you think.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Soljer
roll eyes (sarcastic).

That is the point of the exercise. You throw out anything subjective, any and everything that you can doubt, and what are you left with?

The fact that you think.

Yes I know but it doesnt matter how certain you are of anything there is always a grey area. For example it could argued that you may exist but what exactly is "you" and how do you define "real" and "not real".

The point I was trying to make is that there is no point in saying that you cant prove you exist absolutely because that could apply to everything. The fact that you think is a good indication that you exist anything else is speculation and eventhough it maybe true its really philosophical and not practical.

I was kinda agree with you. *groan*

redhotrash
Lets be fair here, how could he have put on lipstick and eyeliner when theres like 50+ people beating on him? And I refuse to believe his lipstick wouldnt have rubbed off when he was getting slugged in the mouth. So yeah maybe his lips were just dark. As for burning himself, how? Can you really aim laser vision at your chest in such a angle? AND finally would Cyborg really hang out with a emo? So yeah he cried, but he did it in the middle of a huge brawl, not in his room writing a poem.

Anyhow, normally I'd say Thanos, but he did get taken out by a sucker punch from Drax....

Kutulu
Originally posted by redhotrash
Lets be fair here, how could he have put on lipstick and eyeliner when theres like 50+ people beating on him? And I refuse to believe his lipstick wouldnt have rubbed off when he was getting slugged in the mouth. So yeah maybe his lips were just dark. As for burning himself, how? Can you really aim laser vision at your chest in such a angle? AND finally would Cyborg really hang out with a emo? So yeah he cried, but he did it in the middle of a huge brawl, not in his room writing a poem.

Anyhow, normally I'd say Thanos, but he did get taken out by a sucker punch from Drax....

The Drax thing was a one-time incident, and it was only because Drax was created by an abstract being to kill Thanos.

As far as the lipstick, that's artist interpretation - in the Superboy comic, he isn't drawn that way, that's from the GLC.

As far as burning himself, I forgot exactly, I'll have to go back and look again, he may have just scarred himself by digging his finger in his chest. He did it when he was imprisoned by the GLC.

Soljer
Originally posted by Alfheim
Yes I know but it doesnt matter how certain you are of anything there is always a grey area. For example it could argued that you may exist but what exactly is "you" and how do you define "real" and "not real".

The point I was trying to make is that there is no point in saying that you cant prove you exist absolutely because that could apply to everything. The fact that you think is a good indication that you exist anything else is speculation and eventhough it maybe true its really philosophical and not practical.

I was kinda agree with you. *groan*

No, there is no gray area. You don't need the definition of reality or self for the implication to hold.

As I mentioned before; even if you only existed as a figment of a higher consciousness' imagination, you still exist. Even if I'm sitting in a chemically induced coma somewhere, and all of what I do is a dream, I still exist. Even if we're all in 'teh matricks' (fear), and reality as I know it is a lie, I still exist. no expression.

I dunno about the computer in front of me, the walls around me, the people I see, the earth, the moon, the stars, I dunno if any of that exists. But I can say with certainty that I do.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Soljer
No, there is no gray area. You don't need the definition of reality or self for the implication to hold.

As I mentioned before; even if you only existed as a figment of a higher consciousness' imagination, you still exist. Even if I'm sitting in a chemically induced coma somewhere, and all of what I do is a dream, I still exist. Even if we're all in 'teh matricks' (fear), and reality as I know it is a lie, I still exist. no expression.

I dunno about the computer in front of me, the walls around me, the people I see, the earth, the moon, the stars, I dunno if any of that exists. But I can say with certainty that I do.

It depends on how you look at it doesnt it? For example you could dream that your Abaraham Lincoln but people dont consider dreams to be real, do they?

Then gain some people do consider dreams to be a different reality.

Kutulu

Soljer
Originally posted by Alfheim
It depends on how you look at it doesnt it? For example you could dream that your Abaraham Lincoln but people dont consider dreams to be real, do they?

Then gain some people do consider dreams to be a different reality.

Exactly! Your dream that you're Abe Lincoln is false - that is a subjective reality that is thrown out because it is doubtable.

What is not doubtable from one's own perspective is thought.

TricksterPriest

Kutulu
Originally posted by TricksterPriest
cool Funniest comedian to ever live. I wish he was still around. sad Then again, he might have died laughing seeing that his 'Persian Gulf Distraction' joke is still viable. laughing

True, many other comedians have in part taken some of his routine and tried to make it their own. Bill Hicks was an original.

Ouallada
Originally posted by Alfheim
Well im pretty sure your universe hasnt been destroyed and you helped to save other universes and im pretty sure you havent had to spend a long time in a dimension that drives you nuts.....

If thats what you meant metaphorically....



I dont think you can prove anything absolutely.

Hence the open-ended nature of philosophy, no?

Ouallada
Originally posted by Soljer
Exactly! Your dream that you're Abe Lincoln is false - that is a subjective reality that is thrown out because it is doubtable.

What is not doubtable from one's own perspective is thought.

Schizophrenia is a simple example of how using one's own thoughts to validate one's own existence is faulty. I'm pretty sure that the annals of history can throw up various examples of people hallucinating that they were someone or something else. According to what you've written, it cannot be doubted from THEIR point of view. it is only doubtable from a third person view. Can you see the circular logic?

Gecko4lif
thanos goes down hard

Alfheim
Originally posted by Soljer
Exactly! Your dream that you're Abe Lincoln is false - that is a subjective reality that is thrown out because it is doubtable.

What is not doubtable from one's own perspective is thought.

Didnt you just say that even if your a figment of Gods imagination your real? So in other words if your a figment of Gods imagination thats a dream or a halluciantion, I think you missed the point entirely.

For all you know reality itself could be a dream as well.

Soljer
Originally posted by Ouallada
Schizophrenia is a simple example of how using one's own thoughts to validate one's own existence is faulty. I'm pretty sure that the annals of history can throw up various examples of people hallucinating that they were someone or something else. According to what you've written, it cannot be doubted from THEIR point of view. it is only doubtable from a third person view. Can you see the circular logic?

Nope, because it's not meant to validate their absolute existence, nor the existence of their hallucinations. Just THEIR existence.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Didnt you just say that even if your a figment of Gods imagination your real? So in other words if your a figment of Gods imagination thats a dream or a halluciantion, I think you missed the point entirely.

For all you know reality itself could be a dream as well.

My friend, you've missed the point here. It doesn't matter if the hallucination or dream is real - what matters is that you can experience it.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Kutulu
He probably calculated it out with his 163 IQ in between shareholder meetings for the company that he runs, since he said he's a CEO.

After all, CEO's keep such busy schedules, it's hard to find time to post in a comic book forum.
I thought he was a corporate headhunter... Got a new job?

Kutulu
Originally posted by King Kandy
I thought he was a corporate headhunter... Got a new job?

He posted a few days ago that his IQ was 163 and that he was a CEO. Apparently he hops around jobs alot.

Ouallada
Originally posted by Soljer
Nope, because it's not meant to validate their absolute existence, nor the existence of their hallucinations. Just THEIR existence.



My friend, you've missed the point here. It doesn't matter if the hallucination or dream is real - what matters is that you can experience it.

"I think, therefore I am", as I have said, requires base assumptions which were not proved by Descartes, and which you have not addressed either. The first is the presumption that activity without an agent is possible, and that introspection holds no distinct object to serve as the abse for Cartesian self-awareness.

I didn't really want to drag this into a philosophy argument, so let me just point out the flaws in simply saying that one must exist because one thinks. I have already listed one assumption, but let me list a few more, many of which were not disputed by supporters of the cogito:

1) That it is I who thinks.

2) That there must be something that thinks

3) That thinking is an activity and an operation on the part of a being that it assumed to be a cause.

4) That there is an "ego"

5) That it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking - that one knows what thinking is.

Go ahead and work it out.

Soljer
I need not dispute any of those. It doesn't matter whether it is 'I' who thinks - even if my 'thoughts' were something else thinking in my stead, I'd still exist transitively. Similarly can be said for your other objections.

quanchi112
Originally posted by Gecko4lif
thanos goes down hard Have you ever read a comic book with Thanos in it?

Ouallada
Originally posted by Soljer
I need not dispute any of those. It doesn't matter whether it is 'I' who thinks - even if my 'thoughts' were something else thinking in my stead, I'd still exist transitively. Similarly can be said for your other objections.

Because they cannot be absolutely disputed, just like the subjectivity of good and evil. The very notions of "I" and "thinking" are hazy at best, and to claim that you understand what they are completely laughs in the face of reasoned philosophy.

Unlike yourself, the objections that I raised do not absolutely make a statement, but rather qualitatively question the assumptions that your absolute statement was based on. A subtle difference, but one which is devastatingly large.

Soljer
Originally posted by Ouallada
Because they cannot be absolutely disputed, just like the subjectivity of good and evil. The very notions of "I" and "thinking" are hazy at best, and to claim that you understand what they are completely laughs in the face of reasoned philosophy.

Unlike yourself, the objections that I raised do not absolutely make a statement, but rather qualitatively question the assumptions that your absolute statement was based on. A subtle difference, but one which is devastatingly large.

I never claimed that I understood the notions you've described - I merely said that, without a doubt, there is an existence and I am a part of it.

Regardless of what that existence is, and what "I" constitute exactly, there is SOME sort of existence.

Ouallada
Originally posted by Soljer
I never claimed that I understood the notions you've described - I merely said that, without a doubt, there is an existence and I am a part of it.

Regardless of what that existence is, and what "I" constitute exactly, there is SOME sort of existence.

I apologise if I came across as a little curt in the last couple of posts. It wasn't meant to be that way. The issue we had at hand was whether or not "I think, therefore I am" is absolutely correct. Whether or not there actually is any form of existence is not consequential, as only a first person existence is proved by the cogito. The word "I" itself is vague, and forced into the cogito. The word "think" is even worse. To think about what thinking means and to use whatever rationale is drawn to validate what thinking is really amounts to absolutely nothing, because if you do not know what thinking is, you cannot think, and if you cannot think, you cannot reason what thinking is.

In a nutshell, from a layman's view, I would agree with you whole-heartedly. From a philosophical point of view, the cogito still stands as a pillar of western philosophy, albeit a flawed one.

Soljer
Originally posted by Ouallada
I apologise if I came across as a little curt in the last couple of posts. It wasn't meant to be that way. The issue we had at hand was whether or not "I think, therefore I am" is absolutely correct. Whether or not there actually is any form of existence is not consequential, as only a first person existence is proved by the cogito. The word "I" itself is vague, and forced into the cogito. The word "think" is even worse. To think about what thinking means and to use whatever rationale is drawn to validate what thinking is really amounts to absolutely nothing, because if you do not know what thinking is, you cannot think, and if you cannot think, you cannot reason what thinking is.

In a nutshell, from a layman's view, I would agree with you whole-heartedly. From a philosophical point of view, the cogito still stands as a pillar of western philosophy, albeit a flawed one.

I wasn't trying to so much defend the cogito directly as I was defending ideas that were spawned by it, and can be attributed to it.

Ouallada
Originally posted by Soljer
I wasn't trying to so much defend the cogito directly as I was defending ideas that were spawned by it, and can be attributed to it.

Didn't seem like that to me initially, but I guess you know what you were doing better than I would. Fair play then.

Soljer
Originally posted by Ouallada
Didn't seem like that to me initially, but I guess you know what you were doing better than I would. Fair play then.

Fair 'nuff.

So, do you just have a passing interest in philosophy, are you taking classes at Uni, or just well-read?

Ouallada
Originally posted by Soljer
Fair 'nuff.

So, do you just have a passing interest in philosophy, are you taking classes at Uni, or just well-read?

Passing interest, unfortunately. Philosophy is a nice thing to banter about when drunk, but doesn't make for good studying. A fair bit of it does spillover to everyday life, so I guess everyone should at least be acquainted with such discourse.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.