The scientists, a fable

[macgeoghagen]

A pair of scientists, ever intent on intruding into the bounds of theology and philosophy, decided to solve the meaning of life. So they observed living things, great and small, plant, animal, fungus, and bacteria; even viruses. They could not find a good definition. They dissected organisms of all descriptions and still could not find a good definition. They eventually discovered that all life forms operate by chemical reactions between carbon based molecules. The first scientist declared that a chemical reaction is not necessarily life, therefore, there is no such thing as life. The second asserted that charcoal briquets are living things.

You provide the moral.

[offgridbob]

The moral of the story is in order for life to exist a spark needs to be added I;E; God breathed his spirit (spark) into man to create life

[cinok]

Originally Posted by offgridbob

The moral of the story is in order for life to exist a spark needs to be added I;E; God breathed his spirit (spark) into man to create life

Now that sounds like a fable.

[offgridbob]

Only if your deaf and blind to the spirit of God Cinok

[macgeoghagen]

Originally Posted by cinok

Now that sounds like a fable.

You would ridicule a bit of knowledge given by another yet offer nothing. No better answer. No worse answer. Begone, Momus.

[Iwoots]

The moral of the story: The janitor cleaned up the mess of dissections and smashed charcoal briquets; punched out from work; went home to his wife & kids; had a beer; generally enjoyed life; and went back to work the next day to clean up after two idiots who thought they knew about "life", but knew nothing about "living."

[macgeoghagen]

I will not be asking any new philosophical questions until next spring. For me, the time of new thought is over for the year. The internet is a poor tool for any thought deeper than a parking lot puddle. It is easier to deliver snark or talk radio style rants than a well thought out response. A few wisdom nuggets were offered and I am thankful for them.

Or perhaps my demands for perspectives are unreasonable.
My questions are unimportant to the average person. It doesn't matter whether or not a person understands that there are things worth understanding if that person never bothers to understand anything in the first place.
My questions are unimportant to the intelligent. The concept works whether or not it is examined, so why bother?

Perhaps I will be reduced to demanding insight from bums in bus stations. Or if things get really bad, shaking down those charlatans with PHD after their names in the philosophy department over at the college.

[Grizzy]

Please doan git mad.. please keep this going.

~Grizzy~

[lunghd]

(Good grief! I work for those two professors... although we call them engineers at work.)

It's a fun question and I think Iwoots nailed the answer. Some folk are so busy defining reality that they never encounter it. Makes ya wonder if Descartes lived in his mother's basement & never held a job.

[grumble]

In reading through a lot of these posts, I have to wonder if some folks know the difference between philosophy and semantics.

The old question, "if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, does it make a noise?" is a case in point. It may make a sound but not a noise, because "noise" is a term with a connotation. Semantics, not philosophy. There is no logic behind the question, only an accepted definition of a word.

Therefore, if you insist on defined terms by an absolute authority that you consider to be infallible, there is no philosophy, there is only semantics. And it renders any discussion pointless except to those who accept the same authority.

[RocketMan]

"The first scientist declared that a chemical reaction is not necessarily life, therefore, there is no such thing as life. The second asserted that charcoal briquets are living things."

"You provide the moral."




Both of them were correct.

Rocketman