I'm new, I'm curious and I already love WP :D

Post Reply New Topic

Hello everyone!

I believe I have AS. My BF has AS too. We are really happy together! Relationships can be fulfilling if you find the right one

I live in Odense, Denmark (anyone else near by?) and study philosophy and physics at the University of Southern Denmark. Just write me if you want to discuss philosophy, physics or other of my interests (see my profile). I am working on my bachelor paper these days - it's about "definitions of life". I would also love to discuss that!

It was not until I took part in a conference in Århus, Denmark recently and met Alex who started this site, that I came to know about it. Now I am really happy I did! (Thanks Alex!)

Looking forward to getting to know you all

-Sif

Welcome! (I am popping in and out of WP so you may not see me aroudn often.) It's cool that you are n a relationship with another Aspie. My husband has a diagnosis too but believes he doesn't have AS after all.

T'hat's a very interesting subject that definitions of life thing. I know very little about it but would love to learn more if you're willing to share.

Hi ChangelingGirl,

Thank you

Interesting with your husband. For me it has been a long process to get to the point of actually saying "I believe I have aspergers" - but it was always something very positive to me..
Also - thanks a lot for showing interest in the definitions of life topic!

Definitions of life: my idea is that the usual fashion of splitting the concept up in living and non-living is wrong. Rather we need to look at the concept of life as something that can be gradually stronger or should I say more definitive. There is the minimal life description taking three components: metabolism, evolving and well localized. Think of a cell. It must be able to maintain itself to stay alive (metabolism), is must be able to split and thus multiplying, to evolve, and it cannot be something without being somewhere, therefore it must be well localized. The concept of minimal life is a good starting point I belive.
The concept of life should furthermore be able to treat difficult cases such as a virus, which needs a host cell to get started, but apart from that functions like other entities said to be alive.

As soon as I can, I will post a link to my BA-project-blog. I must still wait 5 days because I am new - forum rules.

-Sif

Welcome to WP!

hi

Hello. Welcome to WP.
Imitation took philosophy in school but honestly don't remember much of it lol.
I did get a B as a final grade though

Thanks everyone!

@ MusicIsLife2Me - just ask if you want anything refreshed

Welcome to Wrong Planet!

Welkome to WP

Mick

Hi Sif!

What is your preferred "brand" of philosophy, analytic or continental? Are you interested in the philosophy of science and mathematics?

Hi Declension!

I love that you ask

My faculty is mostly in favor of the continental tradition, however I am probably somewhere in between, with a slight tendency towards the analytic tradition. I remember being rather startled learning about f.x. Husserl and Heidegger and their strange phenomenology. To me that was something mysterious that could never fully relate to. I find people like Popper, Russel and Whitehead inspiring, but also Kant was something of a revelation to me, and even the rather odd Spinoza was one I enjoyed reading. I don't think I will ever understand why Wittgenstein was thought to be such a great philosopher though.

I am very much interested in the philosophy of science and especially understandings of the quantum physics. I have not done much research in the field of philosophy of mathematics as such, but the little I have heard and read sounds rather interesting.

What are your own interests?

-Sif

Thanks to Mick and AnonymousAnonymous!

Firstly "My Definition of life" is doing something stupid &/ dangerous - it's the only time you feel alive. Though taken to extreme as a question makes me ask the question: Does language control us or do we control it? which leads to the question: Is language alive? - it has all the characteristics of it.
I'm a amateur in most of the subjects you like, can't get into string theory though - science (philosopy?) cuts though red-tape it doesn't create it. Science has a history of discarding anything complex. "Any idiot can create a complex solution to a complex problem, genius is creating a simple solution to a complex problem."
Anyhow hello.

Hi Sif!

If physics interests you we might be able to discuss : I am a physicist! Specialized in electronics (electrical currents, magnetics, spintronics, and things related to the electron).

No, I am not from Denmark but from Canada. so I don't live near by.

Philosophy? Nyes! Definitely YES (in capital letters) as long as it is philo - Sophia (from greek philo: to love, and Sofia: wisdom). My favorite philosophers are not the German (Gadamer, Heidegger, Engels etc.) but the stoîcs, like Senecus. I think that most applications of philosophy deviate from the search of wisdom. Many actualy search analysis of the method, analysis of the meaning of searching anything, and even the meaning of ...meaning! (hermeneutics) I understand very well that for milleniae men had no other recourse than thinking to find the nature of any and everything. However today we have science. So my point of view is that using "philosophy"(?) to try to understand the nature of things and beings is like using a pre-World War One biplane to carry passengers. Today, there are Boeings, Airbusses, Canadairs (Bombardier), Embraers... I think you understand the comparison.

Similarly about phenomenology. I was reading Merleau-Ponty's "Phénoménologie de la perception" ("Phenomenology of perception") ; I admit this is a masterpeice of rational analysis, but not "philosophy"! Same with Gadamer : extremely interesting analysis of hermeneutics! But once again, not the search of wisdom. In my point of view, German philosophers turned philosophy into what I would call philoanalusê (love of analysis). They explain something. Then they explain the explanation. Then they consider that the explanations may also mean something else. Then this something else must be differentiated trom the previous something. Now, what does "differentiate" mean? There we may agree or disagree. This is how the differences may become similarities. Understanding that "similar" still means slightly different otherwise it would be "equal" or "equivalent". Now "equivalent" may mean "of the same value" but not necessarily "of the same nature". And nobody asks "Euh... anyone remembers what we were talking about?". I understand that the early philosophers like Socrates. Zenon of Citium, Senecus and the like insisted that wisdom requires reflection, analysis, and other rational considerations. But these are MEANS to the search of wisdom : they are neither the GOAL nor the NATURE of philosophy : they are its tools! Many modern philosophers consider the tools and forget the goal. They remind me an adage that says "When the wiseman points to the Moon, the foolish looks at the finger". The true philosophers used reasoning and "logos" to point to wisdom : fools studied reasoning and logos and called themselves philosophers. Some "philosophers" even ended up creating what is called "eristic philosophy": the art of convincing an adversary by apparently rational demonstration even though you know that what you are "proving" is false! How could anyone who has even a faint souvenir of what is "honesty" call that a "search of Wisdom"???

I also object to consider as "philosophers" (lovers of wisdom) only thinkers that belong to the Occidental mainstream way of thinking : many Asians (from China, Japan, India etc.) were as able if not better masters of wisdom than most Occidental "philosophers". In western universities we study Greeks, Germans, French and some Americans, and even some stupid "beau-parleurs" (snobbish smooth talkers, deceivers) as Jacques Lacan, but why not Kung Fu Tzu ("Confusius"), Gautama (the Buddha), Gandhi, Patanjali and the like?

At UQÀM (Université du Québec À Montréal) I had to study German philosophers in a course I took on hermeneutics. It depressed me so much that I abandoned the course! I understand now why the young free-thinkers of der Wiener Kreis (the "Vienna Circle") were so deeply depressed that some were suicidal, and what brought Germany into WW1 and 2, concentrations camps and the like. I also understand the "réaction existentialiste" of Sartre, Saint-Exupéry and the creation of Humanistic Psychology (the school of Esalen) to counteract the German-born paychoanalysis and the American mechanistic ("robotic" would be more exact) Behaviourism.

I actually find more wisdom in some songs of Johnny Cash (like "I walk the line" and "Where did we go right") than in most German "analytic philosophy".

OK : enough blubbering! (I'm getting old!) You say

Philsophy of science is something different. Now about quantum physics, I can only agree 100% with Richard Feynman

OK : I must go. Will be back because the discussion you started interests me.

See ya!

Sorry about the typos. I just noticed them while looking through my posts. I'm on my phone so it types out random words at times lol.

@MusicIsLife2Me

I was wondering what you meant by “Imitation took philosophy in school but honestly don't remember much of it lol”. Did you mean "I" took philosophy...?