Submitted by SilasTheSavage t3_xx70v3 in philosophy
Comments
[deleted] t1_irachg0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_irad905 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iradi70 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_irai7k2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_irajrc1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iranpen wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iraovck wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_irapv2i wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_irapvbo wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_irapvts wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_irapyyc wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Zacaria666 t1_irdnn6z wrote
I like Aristotle's view on this, its like trying to find the starting point of a circle.
Important_Life3507 t1_ireo7p4 wrote
I always wondered about this as a kid. I also came to my conclusion that it must be the egg. (yes I read your whole article and know this is not your final conclusion.) However now I'll say it depends on if our universe and everything beyond is finite or infinite.
If 'The All/Everything' is infinite then I'd argue that they always both were present at the same time.
Thoughts?
noonemustknowmysecre t1_irfpbat wrote
Science, answering all those fun unanswerable philosophical questions since the 17th century. oooooh, they HATE that. This is going to have rage voting and banhammers abound. You've stepped right into the taboo topic of this place. See, philosophy is useless. It doesn't have any answers. It just makes questions. Which is a great thing to do and gets people thinking. It's a fun time. But the moment any of those questions can get answered, it leaves the realm of philosophical and enters reality, ie, the realm of science. Things like "What is man?" really got the ball rolling in ancient Greece, but once we learned about DNA, compatible code-bases, specification, and the horrifically nuanced details therein, philosophers had to move on to "what is a person?". And maybe we'll scoot them off that topic someday, but who knows.
Do "A tree falls in the forest" and Shrodinger's cat next.
Brilliant-Elk-7291 t1_irgi8hs wrote
Good article.
I believe the answer to be the chicken egg. The very precise point of evolution where a life form became a chicken surely did not happen during a chickens lifetime, but when the chicken is being made - in the egg.
Therefore the egg containing the first chicken must have came first, if it was to be the chicken that came first then the evolutionary process of developing the chicken must have happened to the chicken while it was alive. This couldn’t have happened.
This is all due to my knowledge of evolution and reproduction. Which is incredibly close to absolute zero fyi.
Lobsimusprime t1_irk99cc wrote
Laying a chicken egg made whatever creature that did it into a chicken at the same time. So the answer: It was a tie.
SilasTheSavage OP t1_irmln20 wrote
Thank you, and happy cake day. I think that if you want to hold that chicken and egg can constitute propositions, then that is a good response. It seems plausible that chicken would be defined in terms of genetics, and since that is unchanged from egg to chicken, the egg came first.
But I of course take the semantic nihilist approach regardless.
MentallyMusing t1_irv8pgu wrote
So that article went a bit all over the place but this is a discussion I really like to kick around with.
1- everything starts first as an egg and wether we like it or not the egg is developed in a womb some are just ejected in a hard shelled egg that survived the birth canal and some a soft shell that is meant to be destroyed upon exiting.
2- evolution can't be ignored as an extremely long process that humans have tried everything within their power to speed up to provide ourselves with convenience. The sheer Variety of "chicken" we now have is a testimony to that.
3- Birds lay eggs and eggs are easy prey items for a human though it likely was more dangerous than it is now (with the exclusion of some breeds being un-trickable and viscously protective of their offspring that leaves them largely, off the table for us)
4-if we're to believe All life on earth evolved from single celled organisms and that nature allows us to Only breed with genetically similar counterparts then enforcing the ideal that evolution is a fast rather than slow process for a species as diverse as the chicken (or fowl) depending on how your able to divvy thing up goes against well established science with recorded proof of genetic engineering taking place to achieve New species of animals that take generations of modifications from the DNA collection of males and females that are compatible enough to allow for a new Catagory of breed to be developed in either a natural or artificial womb/egg.
In conclusion.... The eggs ALWAYS are first no matter the species of animal including the lesser life forms we typically refrain from giving an animal title to but agree to call a lifeform
SilasTheSavage OP t1_irac3aw wrote
Here I ask the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. I look at it from 3 angles, a naïve one, one looking at definitions, and a semantic nihilist approach. I conclude that the question has no answer, due to the vagueness of the terms.