Who are you?
-
i am mourinho and you are my underlingsOriginally posted by Master -_-:I am the master and u all are my slaves
i am the best and you are the worst -
I would number two is often what people wanna believe they are and can be... But in reality, it's difficult not to be influenced by the people around you as humans are more and more social and community creatures...Originally posted by banzie:Most people think they are number two.... because they wasn't able to see themselves influenced by others. Ego blind spot. -
They say this is a faulty statement... I would say this is somehow a 'partial truth'....?Originally posted by FireIce:i think, therefore i am
-
So is that a good or sad thing?Originally posted by cApitaland:i am the product of my environment. resist the urge to conform, go against the grain and you wont have friends. -
Even influential people get influenced by people from time to time..Originally posted by greenblackwhite:i am influential -
me
-
hey Devil,
looks like you got quite a number of responses. Thought it's a trick question.
I can probably write a whole 30 page essay on this, but I'll spare you. Here's my response. Maybe a little scientific and a little technical. haha can't help it that I'm scientific and technical, because the society made me that way.. haha sounds like I'm being influenced by environment? But had I not had the qualified IQ (a genetic component) I won't be able to comprehend the abstract information at a tertiary insititution. However, even if I had the IQ, I can't be what or who I am today, a student, a father, a mother, an employee, or whoever, unless society has created that position for me.
And the phase "I think, therefore I am" has it's own support and nay-sayers, just that that's used in philosophy to talk about what's the most fundamental unit of self-conscious or the mind. -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it's usage in philosophy has already been proven to be a fallency?Originally posted by Bear:hey Devil,
looks like you got quite a number of responses. Thought it's a trick question.
I can probably write a whole 30 page essay on this, but I'll spare you. Here's my response. Maybe a little scientific and a little technical. haha can't help it that I'm scientific and technical, because the society made me that way.. haha sounds like I'm being influenced by environment? But had I not had the qualified IQ (a genetic component) I won't be able to comprehend the abstract information at a tertiary insititution. However, even if I had the IQ, I can't be what or who I am today, a student, a father, a mother, an employee, or whoever, unless society has created that position for me.
And the phase "I think, therefore I am" has it's own support and nay-sayers, just that that's used in philosophy to talk about what's the most fundamental unit of self-conscious or the mind.
-
Strictly speaking.. It's not that much of a 'trick question'... Though it's unlikely that anyone would belong purely to 'type 1' or 'type 2'... One's state of mind, belief and condition might likely to allow themselves to place own in either of the 2 categories....Originally posted by Bear:hey Devil,
looks like you got quite a number of responses. Thought it's a trick question.
I can probably write a whole 30 page essay on this, but I'll spare you. Here's my response. Maybe a little scientific and a little technical. haha can't help it that I'm scientific and technical, because the society made me that way.. haha sounds like I'm being influenced by environment? But had I not had the qualified IQ (a genetic component) I won't be able to comprehend the abstract information at a tertiary insititution. However, even if I had the IQ, I can't be what or who I am today, a student, a father, a mother, an employee, or whoever, unless society has created that position for me.
And the phase "I think, therefore I am" has it's own support and nay-sayers, just that that's used in philosophy to talk about what's the most fundamental unit of self-conscious or the mind.
-
From what I know. It's true because that provides the basis of consciousness. because if everything is not real. The only thing that you can confirm an existence in your conscious (aka your thoughts). However, it's proven wrong because your thoughts require a sensory from the environment. The saying only goes, I think therefore I am. I can't tell you I'm hot, or cold. I'm nothing or someone or something without knowing something in the environment. You can't be nothing, unless you know there's something. it will be like a blank slate. That's where it breaks down, which then someone proposed that besides a conscious, there needs to be a body. then this debate went on to asking people, so it's the body the drives the conscious or vice-versa, or they interact with each other. Pretty ugly...Originally posted by Devil1976:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it's usage in philosophy has already been proven to be a fallency?