Autor Wątek: Lem as a philosof  (Przeczytany 23082 razy)

wetal

  • Gość
Re: Lem as a philosof
« Odpowiedź #45 dnia: Marzec 04, 2005, 01:00:17 pm »
Every man is an exception , it is natural when he can`t live in harmony with the others. Otherwise this harmony is illusory. Each man should percept himself as personality that has no analog. All people have aim , those who don`t realize it form the majority , all the components of which think about someone who thinks about them. A minority commands the majority. There`s
a choice whom to join.........

Terminus

  • Gość
Re: Lem as a philosof
« Odpowiedź #46 dnia: Marzec 25, 2005, 11:31:58 pm »
I'm not telling you not to feel exceptional, do it if it fits you, but you have to admit that there is another point of view which is absolutely equivalent to Yours: that there is no individuality, and that the independence from group is illusory, because it breaks the natural harmony of the 'human herd'.

And there is no proof that the 'majority' of people suspend the harmony, whereas the 'independent ones' fight it as a minority. It's just a simple mind tactics that can make you feel exceptional easily. To be honest most of the philosophy of the western world is based on this assumtions (that every individual being is as independent as it wishes to, end is an absolute exception).
Note that it only creates the the mind-image of a person who can do virtually anything he/she likes, and is a god of his/hers own.
So he/she is an ideal shop client :) Money economy philosophy, that is:)


wetal

  • Gość
Re: Lem as a philosof
« Odpowiedź #47 dnia: Marzec 30, 2005, 11:15:54 am »
Thank you Terminus for response but I suppose you agree that there is no  collective or society is capable to be as perfect as individuality.All we have in our life is a work of individuals.

wetal

  • Gość
Re: Lem as a philosof
« Odpowiedź #48 dnia: Maj 09, 2005, 01:18:45 pm »
I didn`t want to conclude the topic. Maybe someone more capable will perform the anthem to the man`s M.I.N.D.
THERE`S NO LIMIT OF PERFECTION OF THE MAN`S MIND  AND THE END OF THE ANTHEM DEVOTED TO IT.
 Plz improve me sometimesif I`m telling nonsanse.

SG

  • Gość
Re: Lem as a philosof
« Odpowiedź #49 dnia: Maj 10, 2005, 05:48:14 pm »
Cytuj
there is no  collective or society is capable to be as perfect as individuality


For me, there is no such thing as perfection. Perfection exists only to aspire to it. It's impossible to attain, 'cause we'll never be as perfect as we want, we'll always want to be more perfect than we are.

Every person and every group is able to effectuate great things. I think collectives and societies are capable to be as good as individuality, it depends from the situation which we pose.

Cytuj
THERE`S NO LIMIT OF PERFECTION OF THE MAN`S MIND(...)


The point is, that the group is some number - x - of individuals. There are a lot of minds ( I'm revealing, huh? ;D) and "the limit of... let it be... perfection of the man's mind", that means infinity, increases by x. ;)
« Ostatnia zmiana: Maj 10, 2005, 05:49:49 pm wysłana przez SG »

Deckert

  • Gość
Re: Lem as a philosof
« Odpowiedź #50 dnia: Maj 10, 2005, 08:33:04 pm »
Well, in my humble opinion there is something like a PERFECTION. This is something that most of us tend to. I will quote a nice sentence from a sci-fi movie "The Sphere" - "(...) when Pope Benedict asked Giotto for a drawing to prove his worth as an artist, what he did was draw a perfect circle freehand. Perfection is a powerful message".
It's not possible for us to achieve an absolute perfection, 'coz we're just human, but we have our day-to-day targets which we aim to. These efforts make us more perfect every day.

That's why I gotta agree with wetal who typed:
Cytuj
THERE`S NO LIMIT OF PERFECTION OF THE MAN`S MIND


We still don't know what we're capable of, 'coz human mind is a riddle.

SG

  • Gość
Re: Lem as a philosof
« Odpowiedź #51 dnia: Maj 10, 2005, 11:12:53 pm »
Well, I see I must emend my statement.

I mean, that a perfection is unattainable. You can try to attain it, but you'll never do. That's ONLY a thing which we aim to, nothing and nobody is perfect. "Efforts make us more perfect every day", that's true, but only more, never full.

Terminus

  • Gość
Re: Lem as a philosof
« Odpowiedź #52 dnia: Maj 11, 2005, 01:35:44 am »
Cytuj
what he did was draw a perfect circle freehand.


You could watch Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ. There is a scene, where Jesus draws a circle in the sand, in order to sit in the middle of it. Powerful symbolics there.

Cheers.

Terminus

  • Gość
Re: Lem as a philosof
« Odpowiedź #53 dnia: Maj 11, 2005, 01:42:46 am »
Cytuj
I mean, that a perfection is unattainable. You can try to attain it, but you'll never do. That's ONLY a thing which we aim to, nothing and nobody is perfect. "Efforts make us more perfect every day", that's true, but only more, never full.


It's a matter of definition. Perfection cannot be attained -  by definition, because it is defined by denial of every attempt to attain it:) It's just like supremum (upper extrema, upper limit) in mathematics. An element S, defined for a given set A, that is greater (in some sense (eg. bigger, larger, etc.)) than any element of A. It's worth noticing, that S doesn't have to be a part of A at all ! This is just the case of perfection.

So once again, perfection is just one more of ideas, designed by humans to help them exist. Other ones follow: eternity, infinity, timelesness, emptiness...

Luckily, not peacefulness.

« Ostatnia zmiana: Maj 11, 2005, 01:43:42 am wysłana przez Terminus »

SoGo

  • Gość
Re: Lem as a philosof
« Odpowiedź #54 dnia: Maj 17, 2005, 09:11:10 pm »
Cytuj
So once again, perfection is just one more of ideas, designed by humans to help them exist. Other ones follow: eternity, infinity, timelesness, emptiness...

Luckily, not peacefulness.



The define of the undefinable.
;D

Laszlo Katona

  • Gość
Re: Lem as a philosof
« Odpowiedź #55 dnia: Maj 27, 2005, 02:14:36 am »
All regards for Clapaucius!

Where have been eliminated the original theme: what is the centre of Lem's philisophy?

You are right. The question is: Lem are an atheist, or a believer? He declare: "I'm a non believer", but his works shows he is.
He never admit that the human nature or the whole universe can not conclude from the (spiritual?) forms of accidental falling athoms (Demokritos), but what he wrote ever made ridiculous it.
The next question is: anybody, who can't beleive in materialism could be a beleiver in the same time? It seems not. Because to be a believer must take a huge step: isn't enough to believe in "kharma", or such supernatural powres, but must believe in a Person, Who wanted that we (and the whole univers) can egsist. Lem didn't wrote a word about it, because if anybody start to thinkin on human history, can see that the nation of Bible had a very unic state in that, and it can not expicable with tools of any science.
Therefore he can't reach that level when the phillosophy starting to be interesting, but nobody was near to his thoughts in the XX. century.

An example: there was a philosopher in the "dark" middle ages, who stated that God could create a universe, if He(?) wanted, what seems to be an everlasting (non created) one. Why not?

The answer of this question is not a "scientific" (object) one, but a moral. Some evolucionist thinkers (exp. Lem) states that the moral is simply a strategic tool in the fight of life, which can explain from genetics, but they can't answere to that question: maybe it is possible, but why much more successful tool the moral than a claw or a horn. (...)

In that point leap out the non realistic dilemma: individual or mass (not only genus or race). But this ideas are only in our thinking: a delphin has never thinkin about himself as a delphin, he have a name. (In his thoughts, just like dogs, cats, birds, etc..) Therefore the "evolution" can not work with mass, or race, it can work only with individuums. What's with the ants? A dont know, but I think the individuum needs free choices, like dogs or cows, and that I don't see between insects (or some others).

But this isn't important. What important is that Lem point of view is a non-believer, but non materialistic one. Why? Because he didn't know nothing about JHWH? Or the amazing history of the nation of Bible? I think not, he started to live in a difficult world, when one person's origin can be a crime. I understand that he can't understand the religious ideas, when more than six million people was killed just because born "at the wrong place".

The "egzact", "objective", "overmoralist" science isn't capable to solve the most scientific questions, because the end of this ideas is the death, and not a simply one.  It is vain, to think that the death of a genom is same that a death of an individuum. In the true world is not such thing that a death of a genom. The extinct of the dinosaurs isn't true: distinct anymals was destroyed. If I could, I wrote a story about the last Iguanodon, who lived thousand years after the death of itkinds (sorry...).
Summa: Lem is a moralist, not an atheist, despite of what he states about himself. this is the true philosophy after the ancient greeks.

regards

Laslo Katona



SoGo

  • Gość
Re: Lem as a philosof
« Odpowiedź #56 dnia: Lipiec 04, 2005, 01:22:08 pm »
What is there more about to say?