<p>There is a genre called “philosophy fiction” out there and you might try out any of them in that list; a lot of them would be worth a read. A lot of albert camus’ works are certainly in the list.</p>
<p>I feel like such a plebe. You’re all reading super philosophical books but all I’m reading is a history book.</p>
<p>I didn’t like Sophies world all that much. I felt like it took a long time to describe a lot of stuff which didn’t need explanation. </p>
<p>First read Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It’s my favorite, or one of them.</p>
<p>And I definitely don’t think objects can have feelings. My type of philosophy is very poststructual and political. Think in terms of Foucault and Derrida. </p>
<p>The question, I would argue the most important question of our time, is what constitutes difference? and Why do people desire their own repression?</p>
<p>@debater don’t feel like a plebe. Few people read philosophy. It’s all good. We all pick our subjects we like. I like philosophy, some people like science, and so on.</p>
<p>Also, I’ll place myself firmly into the Camus camp. </p>
<p>The Stranger is probably my favorite book.</p>
<p>You have an interesting theory, daisy. I mean. The brain has gone as far as naming and labeling itself ad the most important organ in the body…the brain, because it is undoubtedly biased, may be making up “logic” so that it is logical to itself but is it really logical? I can’t even trust my own thought process because it’s based primarily on logic. Logic is man-made, so how can we be sure that it’s correct?</p>
<p>@carter</p>
<p>I mean, isn’t it impossible for an inanimate object to have feelings? Because to do so, it must be animate? I’m not good at these questions.</p>
<p>@fffightingdaisy
Of course, but there are explanations that are more simplified than others. It is indeed very interesting. I see instances all of the time on the internet where people don’t acknowledge the limitations of a given hypothesis and use it as an argument to further their point of view or whatever. All science is is a why to try to describe and predict what nature is doing, and we keep on refining those predictions.</p>
<p>Yeah I skimmed Sophie’s world once and it’s been sitting in my shelf intimidating me for quite a while d:
@Wisconsin I’ll definitely look into that one! Thanks :)</p>
<p>@debater</p>
<p>i just finished the stranger! it was such a great read, i’d like to gain entrance to the camus camp</p>
<p>@fireball, not necessarily. I guess my imagination is too wild, but inanimate means not alive… What if those objects are inanimate to us but animate to each other? Biology tells us that there are certain things that must exist for something to be alive, but what if there’s another type of biology that we haven’t discovered yet that allows ‘inanimate’ objects to be considered animate?</p>
<p>@carter001 But there is no such evidence for the type of biology you are describing. I mean, it’s a fun question to talk about, but I just don’t see how it could be realistcally argued.</p>
<p>True, but that takes the fun out of philosophy lol I could ask how you know what is realistic and what isn’t, but this discussion would never end.</p>
<p>I kind of get what you’re saying Carter, please tell me if I’m way off base, but it reminds me a little bit of Plato. Sounds kind of like his idea of the essence of everything, its most true form–I’ve always pictured that essence as a living thing, or at least not inanimate in the sense that we use it in every day life. So each individual pencil is inanimate, but they all have a hint of the essence of pencilness and that’s animate?</p>
<p>@carter Todd May writes an interesting book which discusses this question. The main problem is that under the constant questioning for objective truth, any statement you make about relativism also applies to itself you can thus never have any claim of anything, even the claim that there is no claim. It’s circular. </p>
<p>Thus we can only have particular foundations of thought which shifts with each scenario we’re in.</p>
<p>@EnoughNerve Essense is a very flexible concept. All of ontology is indeterminate anyway. I personally really dislike Plato. There is no core essence and even if there was you’d have no way of knowing.</p>
<p>I believe you’re correct in that it mirrors one of Plato’s theories. I have a very difficult time explaining myself clearly when it comes to stuff like this…but you know how our knowledge is limited? The world is infinite and we know not even a fraction of the world we live in…we cannot rule anything out, because we know nothing for certain to begin with. We think we’ve formulated some foundation for explaining this world’s phenomenons but we haven’t even graced the tip of it. Imagine that we are all only in a state of mind where we find ourselves animate…we watch tv, socialize, eat, laugh, love. (Clich</p>
<p>umm wow. this thread goes from quantum entanglement to the philosophical ideas behind essence in 3 pages. i love it. </p>
<p>anyways, is about.com even a credible source (according to teachers)? i’d trust in wikipedia over about.com on many a topic.</p>
<p>@carter my main problem with such “what if” scenarios are that they are very circular and pointless, in a lot of ways. </p>
<p>Plus they are non-falsifiable. And even if our measures are imperfect, they at least prove contingency for life as we live it, and at least we can feel those effects now.</p>
<p>@neon <em>shrug</em> my teachers are ok w/it</p>
<p>I know, @WD, but it’s philosophy… I never really expect or seek a straight forward answer. I like the “what if” scenarios because there is no right or wrong answer(: everyones a winner!</p>
<p>@carter001 I think I know what you are talking about!(yet I can only think I know because I never actually know 
This is an argument of an ancient chinese philosopher named Zhuang-tzu…) what this ted talk</p>
<p>[Stuart</a> Firestein: The pursuit of ignorance - YouTube](<a href=“Stuart Firestein: The pursuit of ignorance - YouTube”>Stuart Firestein: The pursuit of ignorance - YouTube)</p>
<p>It’s basically the argument that knowledge generates ignorance.</p>