What I have learned week 46.

Except a general practice in the English languish, which I need, I have this week learned a bit more about myself, and the way I have developed the last years when it comes to philosophical thoughts. I remember the time before I started at KTH, philosophy was something I really liked, and used to discuss. I still do, but I find it much harder now to think about some certain philosophic thoughts. I still like to discuss things that don’t have a strong scientific “proof”, like “what’s happens after life? Or what happens in the end of space?” but most of all ethic and moral questions like “Is it right to kill one person in order to save several persons?”. But if the areas have a strong scientific proof, I have hard to discuss the areas in a philosophical way, without I starts thinking at the discussion get fuzzy.

I think it’s unlucky that we couldn’t have the lecture or seminar this week, due the text had several interesting questions, which I find is hard to discuss further with myself. Even if the discussion and the arguments in the text were good, I would think it could be fun to exchange my thoughts with others. Especially if many had got different thoughts about to text, and the discussions that the text brings up.

Reading the text make me realize, even if its hard, that pretty much everything could be questioned, and when there exist a “scientific proof” for something, lets contested the proof. Russell shows in the text, that almost nothing is really clear. Bringing up discussions like “is 2+2=4” or “does the things we see with our eyes really exist, or is it just illations?”, is things I don’t usually sees as questions, but rather a fact. Even if I somehow knew that everything could be contested, I almost forgot these kinds of questions, and the interesting arguments that come along with the discussion of those questions.

Reading some reflections and answers in the blogs brings up some questions. There exist several difference answers to the same question, not necessary contradictory to each other, but bring up different point of views on the text. Even if several answers to a question could be considered as true, they contain different kind of points. The questions “what is sense-data?” and “Russell introduces the notion "definite description". What does this notion mean?” is the question I think have most answer where different answers could be relatively similar to each other.  But in the other two questions, the answer wasn’t as similar as in first two questions that are mentioned above. To be honest, I think question 2 “What is the meaning of the terms "proposition" and "statement of fact"? How does propositions and statement of facts differ from other kinds of verbal expressions?” in some ways was quite difficult, and sometimes it hard to tell if an element in the answer in a blog really are true or not. For that reason it is a shame that we all missed this weeks lecture and seminar, where at least I feel it could be nice with some clarification on the concepts and ideas that the text brings up. Even if I have my own answer for all this weeks questions, I have some doubt in some of the answer, in the way that I not confident with one hundred percentage to if they speaks the truth or not, or if its exist a true answer at all.