Quote (ilikebacon3000)
So basically what your saying is that "The thought of defining a thought is a thought in itself" type thing? like its a circle of redundancy?
Yes.
Quote (ilikebacon3000)
But what I'm also trying to get at is: If thoughts ARE nothing, do they need a body to attach to? Do they need a brain to be thought into exsistance? Is the brain just something that sort harbors someones spirit/soul/whatever throughout this lifetime?
Your definitely on the right track. But study into monism & dualism positions of the "mind/body mystery." It will help you if you study into that.
Quote (ilikebacon3000)
It's almost as if thoughts are a mind of it's own. A mind inside a mind, except the second mind is really a mind, meaning they are in face a mind of it's own? Fuck! I've been just thinking about this ALL DAY. It's one of those questions that simply can't be answered and it really really really irks me!
You have definitely covered a lot of ground by yourself. This is a philosophical issue that is well known. The concept to which you are referring (the mind within a mind), is known as the "homunculus." Gilbert Ryle called this concept "the ghost in the machine," in his arguments against dualism.
Quote (eboyd)
The biggest logical flaw you have is that you beg the question of the existence of this outer universe. In other words, you use circular logic by assuming that the OU exists and then trying to rationalize it's existence.
True, it's like a god argument.
Quote (8Diagrams)
I reccomend starting with Greek philosophers (IE, Plato, Socrates though Plato wrote what he said, Aristotle, etc.) unless they are one of the ones they are teaching you.
I would actually recommend reading more modern philosophers because many of the ancient philosophers (as impressive as they are) are a bit out dated and some of there philosophy has become obsolete. Most modern philosophers absorb the ancient philosophies that still apply into their new arguments. So the accumulation of "good" philosophies is usually already built in. So there isn't much (necessary) need to go backwards. But nevertheless it is still enjoyable reading (especially considering how long ago it was written) but it can be a bit thick beings it is translated and can be a bit archaic at times. I would suggest reading philosophy from around the Enlightenment Period and on, because they absorb all the past good stuff into their philosophy and build upon it greatly. That's what's great about it, it's a continuous structure of ideas being built by hundreds of men who collaborate throughout time with thought. Every so often we reach a general consensus about some aging philosophies and can move on into more complex things with the past philosophies already built in. Luckily we can trust these sources. But read the old stuff if you'd like. It can help you understand all the sides of an argument even though you may be on the more correct side yourself, but it helps you to not make the mistakes that many in the past have made.
Quote (ilikebacon3000)
Anyone know where I can study philosophy very broadly for now, then get more in depth?
I would recommend the textbook "Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings" after you study logical arguments first, because the book doesn't contain much about logic formulation, but it offers plenty of philosophical arguments of all sides ranging over the most popular topics by providing writings from many philosophers (many modern). Many introductory college courses use it as a textbook.
