greene0ne

[

mood

|

surprised

]

Oddly enough, it seems that somehow, despite its slow stagnation, the guild has acquired some new members!

Damned if I know how!

Anyway, it's probably time to start this beast up and running again, so we'll start the Weekly topics again (as of Friday), but we're gonna give you an extra day and start TODAY!

Weekly Topic #7: The impact of Christianity on the development of Postmodern philosophy!

Christian philosophy has predominated the philosophical realm since St. Augustine. Has postmodernism arisen as the necessary movement beyond Christian thought? What is postmodernist philosophy, really?

Think about it.

h4

[

mood

|

drained

]

so here is the theory.............(from an evolutionary adaptation point of view)


Human males as compared to other members of the ape species have rather large (penisus/peni)uh.... members.....

but this organ clearly is not used to attract females, as most females don't find that particular organ attractive, and choose other body parts as more of a turn on i.e. hands eyes, back, etc.

So why is it that humans developed such large organs in comparison(orangutans 1 cm, gorillas like 3 or so). If it was not to attract potential mates then what could be the evolutionary advantage of such a large penis?

hmmmmmm......
could it be that human males developed large members not to attract mates but to ward off any competition?
Really do males use the lenght of their penis in posturing against other males?
Is it a threatening organ, akin to say the antlers of a moose, teh bigger it is the more of a man you are so back off and such?

I think this is a very good explination for it.

any comments?

h4

[

mood

|

accomplished

]

As most who know me will attest to, I am a strong feminiest. so here is thought topic of teh day....


It seems that our society beieves it is more advantageous to be a man. When I say this I'm not talking entirely about wages and rape and all the issues that go along with being a woman, but in the actually behaviour and physicality of femalehood. To clarify.....It's alright for girls to wear pants and cut thier hair short and behave like a man, get an exec position, and those sorts of things but for a man to weara skirt or act in a decidely feminie manner(gay or not) is seen as degrading, at least by the majority of society.

I mean women have tried so hard to get on equal foot with males but all we have really accomplished is becoming men ourselves. We can sleep around like men confident in out decisions as equal to what a man would make but really we are jsut women tring to be equal by being what we beieved to be the dominant member of our species. But men who are monogamous(or are waiting)or dress in a feminine manner or get a "feminie" jobs and such are seen a weak or no longer a man.

This confuses me. We want equality but we have just become men.

Now that being said I don't girls should revert to the submissive little pathetic weaklings they once were(as portrayed in the media)Girls should be strong and independant and such but embrace the fact that they are women. Know what I mean, it's ok to be really girlly and wear pink and all those sterotypes, but this is also ok for a man to do as well.....

Ok now this is getting really long winded, I guess you see what I'm getting at here so now it is open to discussion and what not.

Thanks for listening!!

kaji_sama

[

mood

|

complacent

]

Well, I'm Aaron Pittman and I took a somewhat different approach than my two fine colleagues of the philisophical persuasion in that I am a student of the great school of sociology, which coincidentally can be linked to philosohpy (go figure). I'm in my second year of study at Grenfell College and recently I've found myself working on a social theory to explain the phenomenon that has been falsely called disembodiment, I'll explain more of why I say false in further posts along with a brief explanation of disembodiment for those unfamiliar.

My academic idols are Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Descartes with particular intrest in Marx and developing a workable socialist system of government.

Apart from sociology my interests include European history from 1688 onward, and anthropology. I look forward to conversing with each of you.

greene0ne

Topic #3, for the week beginning Monday, January 17th, 2005: OPEN Topic

Alrighty, I'm not quite sure what to post as a focus for our discussion this week, so let's see if we can't get a better response from just seeing what you guys think!

I want to hear something about any given topic from each one of you. Doesn't have to be much, just a point of interest, though you're more than welcome to submit more than just that. Even if it's just a question, post SOMETHING.

greene0ne

Topic #2, for the week beginning Monday, January 10th: Human Freedom

In asking the question, are humans free, we must address what is perhaps the most pressing issue in philosophical conceptions of human freedom, i.e., the determinism of particle physics.

Particle theory emphasizes that if all particles were trackable by science, you could predict with total accuracy the future. This is because, in particle theory, all matter moves in one linear path through time driven by the individual particles. This resolves that, of course, the human free will is non-existent in that all behaviour is driven by the movement of particles in the brain.

If particle theory is correct, all human activity has its origin in biochemistry rather than in the metaphysical "soul". I do not believe this is possible. However, it is not enough for me not to believe it, I have to be able to rationally prove that the human can have a will not derived from biology.

We need to prove that human activity is free because thought is prior to physical motion.

greene0ne

[

mood

|

tonka trucks

]

Anyways, I suppose we should have some kind of basic rules structure for this forum.

How about:

1. Respect. Respect everyone, and you won't get your posts deleted and posting access removed.
2. Don't Spam. Same as above.
3. Aside from respect, let's have professional courtesy in terms of our language. As an example of what not to post, I'll leave Craig's last post alone.

I think that's enough. In accordance with the 3rd Categorical Imperative, I'll treat you peoples as self-legislating. These are, of course, more guidelines than rules.

How about a topic of the week structure, everybody like that idea?

Well, perhaps we'll feel it out and decide if it works.

THIS WEEK:

Are humans free? What does freedom necessitate? What does reality have to be like to facilitate human freedom? How does particle-theory effect the possibility of freedom?

greene0ne

[

mood

|

marginally joyous

]

Started some non-sense about a philosophy oriented community some time ago, here it is.

This is the Four Fingers Guild. The Four Fingers Guild sees itself as approaching philosophy as the underlying unity of the other three disciplines: science, theology, and the arts. We are dedicated to finding a better understanding; not of any one particular thing, but of the grand totality that comprises our reality. By understanding philosophy we aim to acquire a better grasp of the quality of those disciplines which find their rational expression in philosophy, namely the three disciplines stated above. Beyond this our goal is to better grasp the philosophy that gives rise to these disciplines.

Have fun, and most of all, THINK!