Log in

No account? Create an account
The 4fingers Guild [entries|friends|calendar]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

(4 Thinks | Think Out Loud)

Interesting... [07 Apr 2005|12:48pm]

[ 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.

(4 Thinks | Think Out Loud)

[09 Feb 2005|10:55am]

[ 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?

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?

(3 Thinks | Think Out Loud)

[02 Feb 2005|11:00am]

[ 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!!

(1 Think | Think Out Loud)

I love it. [01 Feb 2005|01:45pm]


(3 Thinks | Think Out Loud)

[01 Feb 2005|12:34pm]


.. guild.. stagnating.....

... need... new... content..!

........... what is... art..? how is it that... by the postmodern... definition... art is negated by itself..?


(1 Think | Think Out Loud)

Me [22 Jan 2005|02:07am]

My name is Chris Kendall. I'm an unemployed, uneducated simpleton with no real interest in any fields of Academia. I joined this community because Chris Greene asked me to. In short, I have absolutly nothing to contribute. That is all.

(1 Think | Think Out Loud)

[21 Jan 2005|07:49pm]

JAn MArie RUssell, fine arts student. I have very little experience in Philosophy, except from what I glean from my Sweetie Craig and his Sweetie Chris. That, and my trusty "Philosophy for Dummies" book. I'm not kidding, its sitting on the shelf of my computer desk. I have a pretty open mind about the subject, and I am actually learning a bit. I will try to hold my own in discussions, so please don't slam me for my lack of knowledge.

(1 Think | Think Out Loud)

I guess I'm Next [21 Jan 2005|02:57pm]

[ 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.

(Think Out Loud)

[21 Jan 2005|11:59am]

Alright, I'll start us off.

My name is Christopher Greene, and I've been a student of philosophy for about three years. I've been a philosopher in my own right for about one year. I started taking philosophy in my first semester at school, and decided that it was for me, though initially my reasons weren't explicitly for philosophy itself.

I believe that the underlying truth of reality is that fundamentally, reality is Boundless. This is better expressed in the Greek word Apeiron, which has a much more thorough meaning (of Boundlessness) to me. I'm still working on this, but it's a pretty compelling argument, once you get to thinking about it, mostly because it has underlied our concept of an eternal being for as long as we've conceived of one.

But enough about me. Questions or concerns, just comment.

(1 Think | Think Out Loud)

[21 Jan 2005|11:40am]

Am I the only one here engaged in doing philosophy or some other discipline!?

I'm going to rhyme off the membership, and we're going to see about starting this society up. Here are the ACTIVE members, and their specialties:

greene0ne, anaxaleon: Christopher Greene - Philosophy
h4: Heather Hutchings - Science
jamaru: Janet Russell - Art
kaji_sama: Aaron Pittman - Social Theory and Sociology
pen_name1, notcraig: Craig Morrison - Philosophy and Art

If you're a member, and are not listed here as ACTIVE, it's because you haven't posted to the guild yet (and here I'm referring specifically to ek_arc and xr71).

I want all members, active and inactive, to make a small post about themselves. Make it whatever you want, but in this same post I want you to set down what you believe about something. Could be something as big as the nature of underlying reality, could be something as small as belief that democracy makes us unfree.

So do it. I want separate posts, not comments to this post. I'll even start us off.

(7 Thinks | Think Out Loud)

[19 Jan 2005|09:03am]

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.

(2 Thinks | Think Out Loud)

[12 Jan 2005|11:59pm]

lookie Lookie
I'M HERE!!!!

(4 Thinks | Think Out Loud)

[12 Jan 2005|01:15pm]

You guys (with the exception of Janet) are horrible members.

Comment damn you! Comment! On the topic of the week!

(3 Thinks | Think Out Loud)

Topic of the Week: Topic #2 [10 Jan 2005|09:40am]

Okay, since last week's topic was very nearly completely ignored, we'll start again with topic two for the weekly discussion.

Because I don't think we can really get away with giving a less-than-full account of human freedom, I'm going to restate last week's question in a more involved context. As well, I'm going to put in some things to think about.

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.

Ready... Set...

(4 Thinks | Think Out Loud)

[07 Jan 2005|02:19pm]

[ 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.


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?

I think this can be resolved rationally, without reference to particle-theory, but it would undoubtedly be a partial answer. In order to truly answer these questions, we need to rigorously consider the place of physics in human freedom. Let's debate!

(1 Think | Think Out Loud)

Hey [24 Jan 2005|12:36am]

Hey everyone. I know I'm not a philosopher but as greene0ne pointed out, sociology and philosophy are linked and as we have collaborated before I thought I might like it here. So I'll try to keep up with you guys and maybe you could help me streamline my theories.

(Think Out Loud)

[06 Jan 2005|07:32pm]

[ 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!

[ viewing | most recent entries ]