Entertain a Thought!

Hey all, Bertrand Russell. Credit: Wikimedia Commons . I just finished reading (or rather, listening to) Bertrand Russell's book: The Problems of Philosophy .  The book was included in  project Gutenberg  and Librivox , which means it is in the public domain, and you can read it or listen to it for free.  Whenever I quote text, the bold emphasis  is mine, not the author's. Hope you enjoy it! I learned quite a number of new and interesting concepts and insights. Below are some of the notes I wrote, and some interesting bits from the book as well, which I encourage you to read/listen to because it really is very interesting.  On the Theory of Knowledge While the idea that we may be dreaming, and that nothing exists in the world except for ourselves, is a logical possibility, there is no good reason to believe so. It is almost like applying occam's razor to this idea. It is a logical possibility, just like the possibility that a flying teapot orbits jup

Quick thought ... Credit: Wikimedia Commons . Perhaps there are no laws "of" nature. Perhaps what we call "laws" or "relations/universalities" (to use more appropriate philosophical terms) are but mere descriptions of the universe ITSELF, just like descriptions of matter and energy. In other words, could it be that it is an ESSENTIAL property of objects (including matter/energy/dark matter/dark energy etc.) to behave this way? Could it be that "laws" or "universalities" are but mere mental constructs? If this was indeed the case, the question  "Why is gravity attractive and not repulsive?" is purely scientific and not metaphysical. It would be conceivable that other universes exist whereby matter has essential properties different from our universe's. In this sense, the questions "What is matter?" and "What laws govern matter?" would be essentially equivalent. Let us ask ourselve

Credit: Needpix Hello folks, I've received lots of comments about my previous notes on the illusory nature of free will, some in the form of comments on the facebook note itself and others in private messages. I apologize for being late in the response but I had to pause for the community medicine exam. To make things simple, I'll answer the questions in a Q&A style ... استعنا على الشقا بالله :) Q1. Why do I have the ability to make simple choices that don't have important consequences? After All, I could have been watching football rather than reading or debating philosophy!! There are multiple problems with the previous question. First of all, it contains a circular argument, which assumes the existence of choice in proving that there is a choice. Or rather, it equates the PERCEPT of free will (what I consider to be an illusion) with the actuality of free will. The second problem with the previous argument is that it equates lack of predictability wit

Credit: Mohamed Hassan . Have you ever thought that you might not be actually making any choices? Ever questioned the freedom of your will? Ever thought while you moved your hand to grab a glass of water that this was predetermined, given the fact that your body has lost water and gives you the illusory feeling of being free while extending your hand to drink? But before we talk about free will, it is necessary to think of the very definitions of the words "free" and "choice" in order to know what we're talking about. The word "free" implies the absence of pressures, the total "autonomy". OK what about the word "choice"? Choice means the ability to pick between various options, right? So if I could buy a red car or a blue car, I would say that I made a choice of color. Alright, so how do our definitions relate to the argument against free choice? Well, I think it is quite simple: try to combine the two definitions toget