₦airaland Forum

Beaf:
Believe me, Isoko would be a better bet as he could at least pretend to be speaking something. Attempting the highly sophisticated lingo of the land would be one boooby trap too far for the esteemed general; it would be an event akin to Holy Ghost hour in a pentecostal church, with the pastor belching out words in tongues only the spiritually gifted can interprete.

The good people would wonder and questions would flow to his most innocent utterance, "is he abusing us?", "why dis malam de take stye curse us na?." Of course, much uglier verberlisations are bound to prevail like, "dis man wan invoke spirit?", "hand go meet dis guy o!" . . .You know the drill.

rofl

excanny:
It doesn't matter which of the GDP you use, it will still give you the same results. Just put into consideration the population giving out the output, and get your average.

That's a possible explanation. Using that same data, Anambra, with a higher population than Ogun, Ondo, and Osun, has a lower GDP than any of those three; that's the kind of trend that Obiagu1 was complaining about and alleging to be due to PPP vs. not-PPP data. However, if you took 5 of the Yoruba states, without Lagos state, and compared them to 5 Igbo states, you would see the Yorubas ahead in GDP (PPP), which would suggest that the population figures for Igbos within those 5 SE states are actually not under counted (though the many Igbos outside of those 5 states that are originally from those states might be resulting in the lower population figures for those states), as they would have higher GDP's if they were indeed being under counted. So unless the GDP data, if ever obtained, shows a different trend from the GDP (PPP) data, I would think that the GDP (PPP) data actually makes sense.

Legend of Dragoon was indeed classic.


I would have to say Final Fantasy 7, followed by Metal Gear Solid, then Chrono Trigger.

[quote author=aloy/emeka link=topic=612290.msg7801621#msg7801621 date=1298662085]Nigerian women, the most beautiful in Africa?


[img]http://3.bp..com/-ivT9vED9mSQ/TWeK5UtX3xI/AAAAAAAABao/QZWg6HCB814/s400/62351_122121874510142_100001369911163_119212_3916216_n.jpg[/img]
Beauty queens in Nigeria


There is a recently released report going round that the world's most beautiful black African women can be found in Nigeria. Do you agree?[/quote]The chick on the right isn't really beautiful. Just for the record.

Obiagu1:
When it becomes clearer to Yorubas that they don't go to school is when the North will overtake them in enrollment.
Now, they can deny every data there but we are laughing.

The major factor is that, on the average, Yoruba families are poorer than Igbo families. You don't go to tertiary institution without fund.
Next Yorubas will come up with their silly per capita income which was calculated using GDP(PPP) rather than GDP alone which tend to put them on a better per capita income than the SE states.

If a thorough research is done comparing Igbo progress vs Yoruba progress and a plot is made, it'll be a shocking revelation.
The gap between Igbos and Yorubas will widen significantly in the next 50 yrs.

Do you have data on the Nigerian states for GDP alone? How can you make these claims for GDP vs. GDP (PPP) if you don't?

The GDP (PPP) data was obtained from here: https://www.cgidd.com/ and there is no evidence that the people who obtained that data did so in order to further a Yoruba superiority conspiracy.

If it's so important to you to find out, go to that website (https://www.cgidd.com/) pick all the states under Nigeria, pay the required fee (not an insignificant amount, unfortunately), and post the results.

It's not important enough to me, however, to waste my money on something that won't affect me. But until you do post the data for GDP alone, it makes no sense to just assert that the data for GDP alone would show a different trend.

So you actually think the average Fulani or Kanuri, or the majority of them look like those two individuals?



And the very fact that you had to use Igbos as an example of people that could, in multiple instances, look Fulani or Kanuri just reinforces my point.


Stop deceiving yourself.

[quote author=eku_bear link=topic=238680.msg7809157#msg7809157 date=1298796398]What is the data on the chart? JAMB, college admissions, college graduation, hs enrollment. . . ?

I guess over some 6 year period; which one?

And where is the raw data used to make that chart?

Which states?[/quote]I'm pretty sure that the data on enrollment actually was on or from the former JAMB website (it changed) or another official website when the original post was made (2009), but I don't think they answered the question of which states they were using when the charts came out around the same time in this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-237534.0.html

There are other statistics in that thread that would agree with this chart, but I'm not sure about the states used. In that thread I linked to above, for example, that Afaukwu poster was counting Rivers as an SE state in this post (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-237534.32.html#msg3500225), but not similarly counting a majority Yoruba state, Kwara, for the SW.

Obviously Rivers is not considered politically southeast nor is Kwara considered politically southwest, but if the graphs from that thread, used in St. Funmi's opening post in this thread, operated under the assumption that Rivers could be counted towards the southeast while Kwara could not be counted for the SW, then there is an error there, though it might not necessarily affect the overall picture of the charts. I think the original source of the article with the charts (Ikechukwu Agbor) should have stated what states he was counting for each region or just posted the state data outright, if he wanted there to be no doubt about his findings. It's entirely a possibility that he could have made the same mistake Afaukwu made and counted Rivers to the SE because it's majority Igbo.

The thing I remain skeptical of, however, are the numbers for Lagos. While it's true that a large percentage of the population of Lagos do not consider or list Lagos as their state of origin it's also true that a lot of people, including young people, do claim to be from Lagos even when they're not originally from there, so I wonder why Lagos state doesn't have ridiculously large numbers.

SEFAGO:
It doesn't have to be, but the fact that it can be is enough to disprove the existence of time travel. An insurmountable paradox highlights the fact that something might not be possible. Ceasing B basically breaks a whole chain of events and destroys time, dont forget that B is linked to C and D and then F, so many events would cease just by one alteration. I smack you, you end up in the hospital, you cannot go to school for 1 week, my slap leaves a permanent mark on your face, people start calling you Big slap PhysicsMHD, as a result of the slap you become famous, then this helps you marry the most beautiful damsel in the world, then this beautiful damsel inspires you to build a time machine. Everything breaks up when you stop my slap. Everything including the time machine that you built that enabled you to travel back into time in the first place.

Why does that have to be the case? Sure all that stuff in the present (my time machine, the damsel as my wife, etc.) might disappear from the present, but while I'm still in the past, why do I necessarily have to be somehow carted out of the past (because I never built a time machine) if I stop your slap or encounter my own self or kill my earlier self, or some other paradoxical action? Why not just let the paradoxical event occur, and then let something "bad" occur as a consequence of this apparent violation of the existing reality, like maybe a physical discontinuity or unapproachable "hole" in space-time? The universe could [/i]somehow work like this, that's my point. So the logical argument you've been making is not actually a decisive disproof, it's actually a conjecture or assertion about how the universe (not just time) [i]must work. But how the universe must work is something which I'm pretty sure is firmly in the realm of physics and experiment and not philosophical logic.

Ok I now get what you mean by retroactive. But does that make sense too? So if at a point in time you existed once, and then you travelled back into time and killed your father. But before you travelled back into time, I had written a fascinating novel about you putting your name down with Ink and Paper. But then you travel back to time causes you to cease to exist, but my book and my experience having met you indicates you did exist. However materially it seems you do never existed at all.

Yeah, but there really isn't a problem in this scenario. I travel back in time, carry out the killing and then afterward, I cease to exist in the past and the present, and all evidence of me, including your novel, ceases to exist.

Come on you should just have said Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We dey learn that one for any village secondary school in Naija.  I do not see the link between quantum theory- very very  small  particles in the nano/femto scale, and real life experiences. I believe heisenberg has to do more with particles behaving like waves so have a diffuse volume, it would make sense to apply discontinuous events on such. Dont know much about wave theory though. Even then such discontinuous change might seem like "discontinuous" because the change occurs at a time scale that is too fast to measure, infact I think that is the true meaning of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle- Edo boy be like say u want to play me wayo sha?

I think you brother De Broglie also proposed that particles can also behave like waves. Anyways we are too large to behave like waves or for quantum theory to find effective application. Even then I am sure you know that classical physics would be a better way of describing our experiences than using quantum stuff.

1. Researchers are currently working, with some success, on ways to impose quantum effects on macroscopic objects. Also, every macroscopic object has a de Broglie wavelength, it's just that the wavelengths of these waves are so small as to be inconsequential. So it's not that quantum effects don't apply at the macroscopic scale, it's just that quantum effects approach classical ("normal" effects as you go from the quantum to the macroscopic scale, unless one tries to manipulate objects/systems to do otherwise.
2. Wave-particle duality is not really what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is about although it's related and yeah, de Broglie was responsible for the wave-particle duality idea.
3. So far it's not the case that momentum jumps of electrons and other particles seem discontinuous. It's that they are actually discontinuous. And supposing that it was actually not discontinuous, but just extremely fast, nothing can move faster than light, and the speed of light can already be measured quite well so what sort of speed are we talking about anyway? Faster than light?

[quote author=eku_bear link=topic=612733.msg7807662#msg7807662 date=1298758462]I have nothing to add to this discussion other than saying that the Gambian president certainly has fashion sense.[/quote]lol


He's certainly had a lot of time (a decade and a half in power) to upgrade himself.

[quote author=Ileke-IdI link=topic=612978.msg7808761#msg7808761 date=1298788427]When did Non-nigerians started categorizing Nigerian achievers by tribe?

Anywaz, good job ma'am. Keep educating our children.[/quote]I think she (Thelma Dickerson) named it that in order to connect with her African roots, not to categorize Nigerian achievers by ethnic group.

Wow. Again? You think with the internet savvy nature of this administration they would have noticed the backlash from the Lagos debacle.

gadogado:
@physicsMHD

why are you going out of your way to discredit a major discipline? clearly your understanding of Spinoza is shallow, anyone can google einstein and tell you his theory of relativity and then say that it seems quite easy to grasp. But how his propositions were arrived at is something you might want to look into. Also, look into other things. I used to think philosophy was quite easy till i started with the upper level classes and its not easy!! its tougher than economics! The concepts are incredibly hard to grasp. I suggest you do a little more research and quit embarrassing yourself.

I'm not trying to discredit philosophy. It's the starting point for a lot of things.

It indeed requires high intelligence and a very subtle mind to understand the very highest and most complex parts of philosophy (Wittgenstein, Quine, Ramsey, etc.).

I concede defeat on that point.


On the issue of Spinoza and philosophers like him, I can't really concede anything. What single idea of Spinoza's, apart from his scientific (physical) ideas, was rigorous or sensibly argued? And what single idea of his is "difficult"? And with regard to the other philosophers I mentioned that are like him, what ideas of theirs are difficult that are not just elegant conjecture?

And how were Spinoza's propositions arrived at? I honestly don't know.


My whole point was about it being one of the most difficult subjects, which I still don't believe. I think it's in the more in the middle of subjects, actually.

SEFAGO:
then it would not be a universe neither would you really be the same person. You would be existing in two different lines or planes really. You cannot exist in tow different universes can you?

? How does leaving the present for the past mean that you exist in two places?

If you perform these acts then you would never have existed in the first place.  See why philosophy is difficult to grasp. Changing one even would have a causative event on your existence 

Yeah, but my whole point is that you could just alter the past and then be altered yourself while in the past after performing those actions. It doesn't necessarily follow that the consequences of later alterations to the past have to occur before the alteration takes place.

Yes thats assuming a non-causative or discrete points in a time line. Basically you are claiming that time can be sliced into different discrete pieces or events. This is theoretically possible but we have to take experiential issues into consideration. Can you really claim that our lives are discrete and noncausative? If I slap you now so u no go feel am in the next second sebi?

This brings in the question of causation- and then you would have to prove first that causation does not exist. Though you are correct that's a big hole in my argument but my assumption is valid because I dont believe in discrete and mutually exclusive timelines.

Yeah, but discreteness could just be the reality, as an experimental fact. In quantum mechanics, particles change momentum discontinuously:

"At the instant of time when the position is determined, that is, at the instant when the photon is scattered by the electron, the electron undergoes a discontinuous change in momentum. This change is the greater the smaller the wavelength of the light employed, i.e., the more exact the determination of the position. At the instant at which the position of the electron is known, its momentum therefore can be known only up to magnitudes which correspond to that discontinuous change; thus, the more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known, and conversely "- Heisenberg (1927)

This theory was just accepted because it's true, not because physicists wanted to believe in such weird behavior.

But if that effect annihilates the existence of the cause, then how did that effect come to be?

A causes B  with A being linked to a prior event. Something prevents the cause of A, so how can B exist at all?

You have totally disregarded Causation and not attempted to disprove time causation which would take a lot of effort. But yes time travel could exist if time was divided into discrete pieces of events which are not causally linked. Our lives and experiences will fill like one badly chopped tomato 

If something prevents the cause of A, then B could just cease to exist after something prevents the cause of A. The consequence doesn't have to be retroactive. That's my point. It could just experimentally be the reality that the consequence is only enacted after the event.

Not really, I think relativity and logic actually roll together.

Yeah, they do. My point however is that seemingly correct logical proofs may not actually take experimental reality into account. For example, Simon Newcomb tried to argue that flight was impossible using current (1900) scientific knowledge and technology a year before the Wright brothers successfully flew.

lol, Beaf this is propaganda like. Gani's claim was inaccurate. The whole thing was about University of Chicago vs. Chicago State University claims, if I recall correctly.

I don't know what happened.

All the other people from that era went on to look normal into old age and to still look like their younger selves.

Maybe it was just pre-emptive karma.

SEFAGO:
Honestly the fact that i dont understand it makes it even more rigorous

Well, here are the explanations:

PROPOSITIONS.

PROP. I. Thought is an attribute of God, or God is a thinking thing.
Proof.--Particular thoughts, or this or that thought, are modes which, in a certain conditioned manner, express the nature of God (Pt. i., Prop. xxv., Coroll.). God therefore possesses the attribute (Pt. i., Def. v.) of which the concept is involved in all particular thoughts, which latter are conceived thereby. Thought, therefore, is one of the infinite attributes of God, which express God's eternal and infinite essence (Pt. i., Def. vi.). In other words, God is a thinking thing. Q.E.D.

Note.--This proposition is also evident from the fact, that we are able to conceive an infinite thinking being. For, in proportion as a thinking being is conceived as thinking more thoughts, so is it conceived as containing more reality or perfection. Therefore a being, which can think an infinite number of things in an infinite number of ways, is, necessarily, in respect of thinking, infinite. As, therefore, from the consideration of thought alone we conceive an infinite being, thought is necessarily (Pt. i., Def. iv. and vi.) one of the infinite attributes of God, as we were desirous of showing.



PROP. II. Extension is an attribute of God, or God is an extended thing.
Proof.--The proof of this proposition is similar to that of the last.



PROP. III. In God there is necessarily the idea not only of his essence, but also of all things which necessarily follow from his essence.
Proof.--God (by the first Prop. of this Part) can think an infinite number of things in infinite ways, or (what is the same thing, by Prop. xvi., Part i.) can form the idea of his essence, and of all things which necessarily follow therefrom. Now all that is in the power of God necessarily is. (Pt. i., Prop. xxxv.) Therefore, such an idea as we are considering necessarily is, and in God alone. Q.E.D. (Part i., Prop. xv.)

Note.--The multitude understand by the power of God the free will of God, and the right over all things that exist, which latter are accordingly generally considered as contingent. For it is said that God has the power to destroy all things, and to reduce them to nothing. Further, the power of God is very often likened to the power of kings. But this doctrine we have refuted (Pt. i., Prop. xxxii., Corolls. i. and ii.), and we have shown (Part i., Prop. xvi.) that God acts by the same necessity, as that by which he understands himself; in other words, as it follows from the necessity of the divine nature (as all admit), that God understands himself, so also does it follow by the same necessity, that God performs infinite acts in infinite ways. We further showed (Part i., Prop. xxxiv.), that God's power is identical with God's essence in action; therefore it is as impossible for us to conceive God as not acting, as to conceive him as non-existent. If we might pursue the subject further, I could point out, that the power which is commonly, attributed to God is not only, human (as showing that God is conceived by, the multitude as a man, or in the likeness of a man), but involves a negation of power. However, I am unwilling to go over the same ground so often. I would only beg, the reader again and again, to turn over frequently in his mind what I have said in Part i. from Prop. xvi. to the end. No one will be able to follow my meaning, unless he is scrupulously careful not to confound the power of God with the human power and right of kings.



PROP. IV. The idea of God, from which an infinite number of things follow in infinite ways, can only be one.
Proof.--Infinite intellect comprehends nothing save the attributes of God and his modifications (Part i., Prop. Bleep.). Now God is one (Part i., Prop. xiv., Coroll.). Therefore the idea of God, wherefrom an infinite number of things follow in infinite ways, can only, be one. Q.E.D.



PROP. V. The actual being of ideas owns God as its cause, only in so far as he is considered as a thinking thing, not insofar as he is unfolded in any other attribute; that is, the ideas both of the attributes of God and of particular things do not own as their efficient cause their objects (ideata) or the things perceived, but God himself in so far as he is a thinking thing.
Proof.--This proposition is evident from Prop. iii. of this Part. We there drew the conclusion, that God can form the idea of his essence, and of all things which follow necessarily therefrom, solely, because he is a thinking thing, and not because he is the object of his own idea. Wherefore the actual being of ideas owns for cause God, in so far as he is a thinking thing. It may, be differently proved as follows: the actual being of ideas is (obviously,) a mode of thought, that is (Part i., Prop. xxv., Coroll.) a mode which expresses in a certain manner the nature of God, in so far as he is a thinking thing, and therefore (Part i., Prop. x.) involves the conception of no other attribute of God, and consequently (by Part i., Ax. iv.) is not the effect of any attribute save thought. Therefore the actual being of ideas owns God as its cause, in so far as he is considered as a thinking thing, &c. Q.E.D.



PROP. VI. The modes of any given attribute are caused by God, in so far as he is considered through the attribute of which they are modes, and not in so far as he is considered through any other attribute.
Proof.--Each attribute is conceived through itself, without any other (Part i., Prop. x.); wherefore the modes of each attribute involve the conception of that attribute, but not of any other. Thus (Part i., Ax. iv.) they are caused by God, only in so far as he is considered through the attribute whose modes they, are, and not in so far as he is considered through any other. Q.E.D.

Corollary.--Hence the actual being of things, which are not modes of thought, does not follow from the divine nature, because that nature has prior knowledge of the things. Things represented in ideas follow, and are derived from their particular attribute, in the same manner, and with the same necessity as ideas follow (according to what we have shown) from the attribute of thought.

I don't see the rigor or the sense in the propositions or the arguments, but maybe that's just me.

SEFAGO:
Many, many ways. For one if time travel is possible then logic dictates that time is circular.

Not necessarily. It could just mean that you could break out of the "line" of time and connect back to a previous point in the line of time. Like if there were some way to find a "hole" to do so. The "main" line would still keep on going in one direction.

Say for example I can travel back in time in the same universe dictated under the same plane of events. If we assume that I can travel into time, i could impregnate my own mother who  will give birth to me. It follows I can impregnate my grandmother on the paternal side and my great-grandmother and then my great-great grandmother. But this is not even possible biologically, since such Inbreeding would definitely cause significant genetic defects.

One can also argue that if I could travel back into time, I could kill my father just before my conception and then I would not exist. But then how will I be able to kill my father if I did not exist? That is a logical fallacy in time travel. Of course it can be argued that no matter what I do, if I travel back into time, it would be impossible for me to kill my father no matter how hard I try. But you get the point.

Also the most rudimentary: Logic also dictates that if time travel was possible then people in the future would have travelled back into time to actually meet us

How does that logically prove that you couldn't just perform these acts and become an inbred person or a dead person immediately or soon after doing so or that you couldn't just perform these acts and then nothing would change? I don't see what you stated as necessarily having to be the case. Reality could just be different just as an experimental fact.

1. Alterations to the past could end up not affecting the present (if every single moment in time were actually "discrete" and not physically connected with the past; or if after a certain amount of time events stopped being connected in time)

or

2. These alterations could end up definitely affecting everything in the present, but not preventing seemingly paradoxical events from happening. If such paradoxical events do happen, there could just be some bad after-effect or physical anomaly as a consequence; it doesn't mean the event must not be capable of occurring.

Not that I believe that time travel is necessarily possible, by the way. But I haven't seen a thoroughly convincing non-physical (logical) argument against it. I suspect that similar logical arguments to the ones you've constructed could have been used to argue against relativity. Yet we know that under extreme circumstances (extremely large masses, extremely fast motion) time does indeed "change." Perhaps under extreme circumstances, time travel could occur.

gadogado:
"cumbaya sitting in a circle" speculations (such as the many from the individuals I just listed) be treated as plausible or even sensible if they're written well enough.

Thats pretty much you saying its all B.S!! Take a class, upper level class in philosophy at the undergrad level and we can discuss. Gloss over ludwig wittgenstein, and no one can say Spinoza lacks depth or rigor. Not even you!  

My friend, here's a bit of Spinoza for you (from his Ethics):

"Prop. I. Thought is an attribute of God, or God is a thinking thing.
Prop. II. Extension is an attribute of God, or God is an extended thing.
Prop. III. In God there is necessarily the idea not only of his essence, but also of all things which necessarily follow from his essence.
Prop. IV. The idea of God, from which an infinite number of things follow in infinite ways, can only be one.
Prop. V. The actual being of ideas owns God as its cause, only in so far as he is considered as a thinking thing, not insofar as he is unfolded in any other attribute; that is, the ideas both of the attributes of God and of particular things do not own as their efficient cause their objects or the things perceived, but God himself in so far as he is a thinking thing.
Prop. VI. The modes of any given attribute are caused by God, in so far as he is considered through the attribute of which they are modes, and not in so far as he is considered through any other attribute."

^^^
Tell me, which part of the above is rigorous and which part you accept as sensible. Be honest.


As for Wittgenstein, yeah his ideas about words were creative, but is it really a coincidence that many of the really creative philosophers like Peirce, Wittgenstein, Descartes, Leibniz, Ramsey etc. were really scientists? It kind of goes back to my point about mathematical logic just being an extension of mathematics (or perhaps vice versa; doesn't really matter whether mathematics is under logic or logic under mathematics, either way it's quite different from the majority of what is considered philosophy). When you go beyond this into non-mathematical logic, what one thing have any non-mathematical philosophers demonstrated or proven and what is difficult to understand or to resolve about their statements? As you noted, I don't have an "upper level course" understanding of philosophy so I'm asking out of honest ignorance.

Which states are being counted as SE and which states are being counted as SW in that chart?

Just wondering.

fstranger3:
SEFAGO-like

Anyway, are you really sure? A lot of native speakers do have issues with philosophy. I doubt the difficulty has anything to do with their relative weak verbal intelligence when compared to yours. To each covert braggart his own

lol@ SEFAGO-like. I meant that sincerely, not for bragging purposes. If you are bewildered by the mere complexity of a sentence, how will you not think that what's being stated in the sentence is actually really difficult to comprehend?

What issues do people have with philosophy? I've never heard anyone call philosophy, as a major, very difficult in real life. That's why I'm asking these questions. I was surprised to hear it on a forum full of Mensa members and engineers.

SEFAGO:
Yeah, I like putnam.

Not really. Its also a philosophy question. If logic indicates that its impossible to travel back into time, even physical theories such as quantum tunneling or whatever physicists dream up as a way of passing the time barrier would not just be possible. Like science cannot defy logic. Period.

Except there are of course multiple universes or multiple realities, I dont believe time travel is something that can be done anyways except maybe in short timescales.

Well depends on the individual. Number theory might not be hard to a hardcore mathematician. As for mathematical biology all theory and construction that does not work- what I refer to as "swagger pass swagger"  

How can philosophical logic indicate that it's impossible to travel back into time? Answer honestly please.

Logic can't even indicate whether time does indeed slow down or speed up (relativity anyone?).


And (advanced) number theory is just freaking hard. Even mathematicians acknowledge that.

gadogado:
Well i honestly think your approach to the discipline is bordering on naivete and some inexperience in that field. Conjectural, I doubt it, why do you think many scientists in enlightenment era europe like Rene Descartes doubled as philosophers, physicists and mathematicians? I believe what philosophy tries to teach is "intellectual investigation" and "critical thinking" at their deepest levels. Much of the approach used is scientific at its core so its not some cumbaya circle sit-in speculating about pointless things as some like to believe. Logic is philosophy, its roots are philosophical and it remains one of the largest branches of philosophy, so much so that LSE offers a doctoral program in just that (philosophy of logic) your problem is you simply refuse to give it any credit due to you apparent biases!

Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary scientific study of how information concerning faculties such as perception, language, reasoning, and emotion, is represented and transformed in a (human or other animal) nervous system or machine (e.g., computer). It consists of multiple research disciplines, including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, learning sciences, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and education

I'm biased. But for good reason. A quick sampling of philosophers like Hegel, Bergson, Spinoza, Kierkegaard, etc., can make you realize that the lack of rigor in what can be counted as philosophy makes it a discipline that lets any "cumbaya sitting in a circle" speculations (such as the many from the individuals I just listed) be treated as plausible or even sensible if they're written well enough. But of course that's outside of analytic philosophy. Within analytic philosophy, I have to ask, with regard to logic (which I don't deny is philosophy) what non-obvious principle/idea/thing has been proven by non-mathematical philosophical logic? I'm asking in earnest. I can't think of a single thing.

Philosophy is a good source of creative ideas, I admit. But I don't know about it being "difficult" unless one lacks the necessary verbal intelligence to understand it. The actual reasoning involved is not so difficult, in my opinion.

[quote author=EzeUche_ link=topic=612132.msg7808622#msg7808622 date=1298785418]Nigerians definitely like to brag about their supposed "educational achievements."

We are a nation of braggarts as well.  [/quote]Who was bragging, other than SEFAGO (who can't help himself, with his Mensa qualifications )?

@Ileke_Idi

I didn't take philosophy courses except for one general introductory course as an "elective" for my major.

I wouldn't spend any money on any further philosophy courses beyond what I chose to fill a 3 hour "arts" requirement.


You should ask some of the public library philosophers on this site what areas are most interesting as I have no expertise in philosophy.

More transformation pictures:


https://www.onlinenigeria.com/obasanjo.jpg

^^^
Then



https://news.onlinenigeria.com/articlefiles/1902-obas.jpg

https://www.kunamanewshour.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/obasanjo-and-daniel.jpg

https://theghanaianjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/olusegun-obasanjo-2-3.jpg

^^^
Now

[quote author=Ileke-IdI link=topic=612962.msg7808570#msg7808570 date=1298784086]You cant possibly tell me that that is a smile.

BTW, can you continue with posting more "Transformation" picture or is this another way to jab OBJ? 


P.S  @ your music video.[/quote]That is a smile. Obj definitely smiles. He even laughs. Ask Atiku.


Yeah, why not mock OBJ? It was this man's responsibility to implement electricity/power reform in Nigeria and he and his associates totally messed it up.

That's not my music video, just an underrated artist with some songs I like.

SEFAGO:
Physicist (or as Yoruba say Faecesist  ) you should know now:

Metaphysics and Epistemology (Like can we travel back into time? or can I kill my own grandfather type of questions, Does God exist?). You should read Einsteins book about time travel its quite interesting.

Ethics is interesting too, not difficult since it strongly is subjective no matter what one tries to argue about

"Can we travel back into time?" is strictly a physics question, the guys who deal in that area are relativity guys. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel for more.


Metaphysics and epistemology, are they difficult in the sense that say, number theory or mathematical biology are difficult?


Analytic philosophy in general is what people call difficult, but apart from requiring some subtlety, it's not really difficult in the sense that science is difficult, in my opinion.

gadogado:
Well Logic is pretty much math without numbers, logic is certainly not easy, the easiest branches of philosophy are political and legal philosophy! but once you get into philosophy of mind/cognitive science, metaphysics, epistemology, even philosophy of language, you're going pretty deep. Little wonder why the study of philosophy has been the foundation of just about all of the worlds civilizations including the current western one!
Theres a misconception about this discipline, people confuse philosophy as used in the more popular context "what is your philosophy on life" with the academic discipline yet the two couldn't be further away from each other!!! philosophy is definitely very hard, not an easy major at all.

Yeah, but once you start getting into mathematical logic, it really becomes mathematics. Boole, Cantor, Godel, Tarski, etc. It's actually math.
Cognitive science is science (biology).
I can see philosophy of mind as challenging;  but I think it's mostly conjectural.




I think this is more about the dichotomy between verbal intelligence and logical/mathematical intelligence. As somebody with both, the most complex language-based reasoning and language-based problems pale in comparison to that are involved in science, in my honest opinion.

OBJ doesn't always look like he's frowning.

https://www.eagleenstyle.com/files/2010/11/obj.jpg





How is Fani Kayode a thief?