Lol, Talk to me.. Aha.

[scottish]

Lets see, I'm much into philosophy, soo let's see if anyone likes the things I put together.
Lets see, while I am writing this, my mood is changing, mentallity and thoughts all at once. What I may want to say may not be what I actually mean, due to the numerous amounts of things going on around me and within me. So, when a person writes document..or story, of what he/she saw, there are numerous amounts of things that are all occuring at once that can alter what he/she actually saw. While what that person may have wrote down, may not have actually been what he/she saw; it may have been something that that person wanted to see, may have changed through being cloudy outside due to mood, or it may have been written down in which it wasn't expressed right.
Going along with "the chaos theory" (where the little things have the most effect in life), I believe that most of history, even what happened yesterday, may not actually be what happened, in fact, let me change that, the same event that may have taken place yesterday that was reported on the news, may have been seen by lets say twenty thousand veiwers. Well, take twenty thousand pairs of eyes, and an infinite amount of activity going on within and around the people, you get twenty thousand different things that happened. So, is there actually a solid truth? Can we actually say that this happened or that happened?
Going along with this subject, well, the basis (kind of a contradictory :P) of this subject, perspective has a bigger role in our lifes than most people take into account.
Why does a judge or the jury have the right to declare if someone is guilty or not? Why can a person say that he/she is wrong and that person is right? It all comes down to whether you view the situation outside of the box. Can we actually put a legal definition on wrong or right? Good or bad? What might be good to someone, may be veiwed bad or wrong by another. If the law states that an action done by someone is wrong, then in societies terms, it IS wrong, no questions asked by many. What many do not take into account is the person breaking the laws. In his or her mind, that may have been right...so why is he being convicted or judge by others when in his mind it was correct?
People tend to be afraid of "anarchism" or having no autority to lay down rules or customs people should abide by. They usually want the most protection they can get, especially if it involves themselves. So, by societies terms, self protection is...most sought after? Then, how the hell do other people, have the right to convict someone who was convicted of doing something to preserve themselves?
On another note...is any one into Plato?..
Plato, a man in my veiws who actually was creditited with an idea that actually contradicts the idea. Plato had an idea, that all things in life, are never new. Nothing new exists, just things are based off of old ideas, that nothing new can ever be created. ( Many things are contradicting themselves in this little thing im writing here, just try to ignore it I guess because there is no way around it). Going along with the idea of Energy can never be created or destroyed, it can only be manipulated, (if this is true...), Platos ideas fit perfectly. If we think of ideas or thoughts as energy, which, I believe they are, everything always has to be based off of one solid platform, which is part of everything that branches off. While what I may be saying right now, wasn't exactly said by someone in sometime, it was thought to be in said but in a different manner. Technically Plato, who did not credit himself for this idea, was credited with this idea by others.
This sets up another example of history that I'd like to go into. While yes, Plato said it, he was well known, so people credited him, without even thinking about what it actually means, lol, it had to have been thought of before. Currently, we think that that idea is how it is stated, but once again, how was it stated when it was first said?
If you play telephone with i dont know, lets say ten people in a room, and start off with a sentece, idk " FFR is the best!", by the time it reaches the tenth person, that sentece could drastically change into a sentece with thirty words, a sound, or even may not even reach the tenth person. Due to opinions and perspective, once again, things change without notice. The slightest miss pronunciation of a word could throw off the entire sentence, and emphasis also goes along with that. So thinking, lets take...umm.. something we believe that happened in history..Van Gough chopping off his ear. Well, idk when that actually happend, but I can at least say it happend awhile ago. Lets put the situation like this, Van gough didnt actually chop his ear off, he clipped it with a knife, and skin fell off. Someone saw it, spread a word about him doing it. Soon, the town knows. Lets say the town has two thousand people, which would mean, at least a quarter of the initial veiwing was manipulated into something else. Word spreads and years pass, now were talking about..the amount of humans that have heard it initially, exponentially raised by a numerous amount. How do we depict what happened? By word of mouth? Hmm..I dont think so, well at least I don't.
Talking about words, we as humans rely on words to express what we want to say, as I am typing right now. What happens when we don't rely on words, how would we express ourselves then? Through actions? How would we describe the action of flying? By doing it? Not to sound cheesy, but honestly, how would we do it?
Any input or suggestions, comments or thoughts on what I have said? Anyone want to add or disagree? I'm always up for talking on this subject, and much more, so post your opinions and we'll talk

[Lightknight924]

Ever play the 'Telephone Game' when you were a kid? One person starts out with a sentence and sends it down a line of people. Then the last person in the line has to recite what the first person said. Except, somewhere along that line the sentence may have been altered or manipulated. Therefore, the true sentence no longer existed by the time it got to the last person. If each person in the line represented a generation of people, it may have the same effect on your Van Gough theory.

Also, all the creatures that inhabit this Earth express themselves without words. The always have. I mean, if you're a sheep and you see other sheep running all in the same direction, there's probably a wolf chasing them. So they're communicating by screaming at the top of their lungs and running as fast as they can. But my example may not be what you're thinking of.

Most of the other stuff your talking about is just based upon people's opinions and morals. If one person sees one thing right and another person sees it wrong, it's just a matter of opinion. Unfortuanatly, man's law sets a basic guide of opinions in which we must follow. Otherwise we get persecuted. Which cuts into people's originality and culture. (i.e.: Homosexual marriges are considered wrong by many and considered ok by many) It's all about people's opinion.

[scottish]

Glad to see some responses..
Alden, I dont believe that recorded fact do not exist, I'm just doubting that many of them are what they were initally veiwed as.
Lightnight, yeah, opinions and morals interest me. What i meant about the no talking thing was, no words. No language. More of lets say a pre-civilized society, where language was not evented, in a population like we have today. Yes, i know we would not have this large of a population without words or language, but I'm just trying to develop some type of idea for my own preference.
Also, just a bit of an extension on the new idea idea, can you guys do me a favor?
Close your eyes, and try to create and something that you have not seen before, heard before, or associated in any way shape or form before..or basically using no prior knowledge before closing your eyes..
Idk, something me and my english teacher were talking about one day, it gets pretty interesting..

[ckj846]

Very interesting but it is all in how the human brain works I think. We see something and we label it with words, actions, phrases, ideas, etc. Like if I say something like "red" you automatically think of a wavelength of light on the colorspectrum that appears that "color". Thinking of something completely original and not thought of before is impossible because what you think is based on past experiences, which means it happened before which therefore implys that your idea is not original. But you are right, this does bring up an interesting question of how these ideas were created in the first place. It isn't like a langugage popped up magically and everyone knew what was being talked about. I guess I'm just backing you up because after much thought I realized how completely correct you were. Interesting.
O_o

[Suzuru]

Paragraphs for love that is holy please.

[iggymatrixcounter]

I can see your view on ideas are never new, but manipulated forms of other ideas.

You can see this in the world too, just because carbon monoxide adds another oxygen atom, why is it a totally different molecule? It's just a changed thing or idea. But yet it's different, new even.

Going back to something never made before, you can also think of music. All notes and chords exist, but not every piece of music exists yet. So when you create a piece of music, is it something new? Or just manipulated data from something else? (or both?)

I don't really see your view on right and wrong either. No one thinks stealing is right. Justifiable in cases maybe but it's still not something you do because you know it's a good thing to do. As humans, we are endowed with an ability to determine right from wrong. Animals act on instincts, while we act on reason, emotion, logic, etc.

Now I will agree with you that things aren't absolutely right or absolutely wrong. If you can be put into the right senario(s), then you can probably justify any action whether it's deemed right or wrong. That's what courts are for. Not only for just proving whether or not someone did something wrong, but also whether or not their actions were justifiable. (EX: Wife kills husband.... seems wrong, but she did it because he had a shotgun pointed at her face.... now it's justifable.)

So really, here I'm just saying, for every senario there is a right (or best) choice and a wrong (or worst) choice. Laws, IMO, try to best describe the best way (or right) and the worst (or wrong) way to do things. They are for our benefit for the most part.

[scottish]

Iggy I can see where your comming from... yet I'm just trying to stick away from the normal "society" or in Nietzchian terms...the "herd", in veiws of justification and "right" or "wrong"...I know 90% of the population will say stealing is wrong...
But how are we, as humans, are able to judge another one's actions or veiws..
What may seem wrong to someone, may not be wrong to someone else...
If someone walked into a store, stole a candy bar, yet had money in his pocket, but did it because he was hungry and had to save the money, majority would call that wrong..
Yet, if that same someone, walked into a store, stole a candy bar, yet his house just burned down, lost everything, didnt have insurance, and is now living on the street, some would call that wrong, some would call that desperation, and some would call it right because he has nothing...
The fact that our society runs on materialistic possesions and emotions does not give us the reason to place a judgement on someone..Some believe that is wrong, some believe that it is ok because of empathy..yet we are just basing it on our position of the situation..
What we humans rely on is prior knowledge. The way we were raised, taught, and brought up to be is what is really behind the situation. What makes sense to us at the time seems to be what is in priority, if you were raised to belive stealing is wrong, then you would most likely say it is wrong. Things that defy a persons moral values then becomes wrong to them... a single person. Vice-versa with the other side.
Now, if we take society into perspective.. Most people will say this is wrong for the same very reason. Why? Like you said, law is placed for a reason. Now, take law away, and how many people will be tempted by this? When veiwing it like this, it seems that society is fake, most people abide by the rules because it seems like everyone else is doing it. Ah, im running off topic..its late..ill edit this tommorow.