LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
I like Schopenhauer because he has the thickest volumes and this makes me look more intelligent than if I were seen with a Heidegger paperback.
But apart from that he is the only one who appears to have something useful to say. Thinking about the world as what you perceive (representation) and what perceives it (will) is an interesting way to look at things and the only worthwhile concept I've ever found in any philosophy book.
Do you know the answer to this one:
A tree falls in a forest but there is nobody around to hear it: Does it make a sound?
I actually gave a lot of thought to this and I found the answer so you don't need to bother thinking about it any further. Because once you do see what the answer is you'll be able to figure out why it is that. If not I can't help you - I came to this conclusion a while ago - but it is guaranteed to have been 100% correct at the time.
The answer is: Who Cares?
I'm genuinely not being facetious - this is a genuine answer. Genuinely. Actually remember how I solved it now - just substitute the terms but keep the format. So: If a flobalob flups in a fripfrap but there is no bobblebop to frump it, does it make a splordge? All of the nonsense nouns have no meaning because you don't know them. Just as you don't know the tree, which is synonymous with the flobalob. So why would you care any more about an imaginary tree than an imaginary flobalob?
But this probably doesn't really solve it because the question is for considering as opposed to answering, I'm told. It might nowadays make you think about those actual trees that probably do fall in forests, which I guess kind of illustrates the enduring nature of some philosophical ideas.
Originally Posted by exchemist
