Am I a bleeding heart left-wing liberal? A raving right-wing nutter? Well, let's see... I'm against the death penalty, but all for revenge. I hate war, but appreciate the value of violence. It seem to me that I appear to others to be in the extreme left-wing or the extreme right-wing at different times, depending on the matter being discussed. Rather than painstakingly list item by item my views on everything, I will attempt to describe how I develop my views on things.

I don't say "violence is bad", or "rape is bad", or "dictatorships are bad", without reason. Many people do. Whatever the issue, I like to first examine its performance through history, think about the role it may have played in our evolution. I like to examine the basic human drives behind it. And I like to think about the possible benefit or detriment to our future. What do I base my decisions on, regarding whether something will be beneficial or detrimental? On basic principles such as "life wants to continue", and "survival is important".

Whatever the matter under discussion, I like to view it equally with all such similar instances or events. For example, if someone mentions Iraq using poison gas against Kurds, I must keep in mind the USA use of nukes against Japan, Australia's murder of 4,000 Japanese POW's, the Rape of Nanking, and so on. A fair perspective is a must.

Another primary consideration is hope. In all things, I hope we humans can become better than we have been, and better than we are. What is "better"? Again, I define this in terms of basic principles of life, and in terms of ridding the self of selfish drives based on fear and such. Why rid the self of fear? Because fear is one of the main methods by which we allow the external world to control our thoughts and actions. We become better than we have been, and better than we are now, when our thoughts and actions are truly our own.

Getting more abstract now, I believe there is a bit of yin and yang to everything. In physics, meteorology, sociology, psychology, war, even cooking a good pizza, there is a balance of forces or factors. The atmosphere of this planet is made of of more factors, causes, currents, temperature gradients, and motions than could ever ben counted, yet tey make up one system; and that system is affected by other things, everything interconnected somehow, countless facets to the universe comprising one universe.

Hmm. That's all I can think of for now, I've been up all night and it's 7:34 in the morning.

Adamism

Adamant

Avoid reading the words of famous dead people until you're old enough to be more than a fanboy/fangirl. There are far too many who wear Neitzche faces on their sleeves, or Camus, or whatever dead dude they've most recently read. It's pathetic. Rather than wave around a banner bearing the words of your intellectual superiors, come up with your own damn thoughts.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!"

:D

Avoid reading the words of famous dead people until you're old enough to be more than a fanboy/fangirl. There are far too many who wear Neitzche faces on their sleeves, or Camus, or whatever dead dude they've most recently read. It's pathetic. Rather than wave around a banner bearing the words of your intellectual superiors, come up with your own damn thoughts.


i heartily agree with this!



i will respond to the other points later.

:)

Originally posted by Adam
Avoid reading the words of famous dead people until you're old enough to be more than a fanboy/fangirl. There are far too many who wear Neitzche faces on their sleeves, or Camus, or whatever dead dude they've most recently read. It's pathetic. Rather than wave around a banner bearing the words of your intellectual superiors, come up with your own damn thoughts.

This, coming from you slaveboy???

Australia's murder of 4,000 Japanese POW's

Never heard of this Adam, do you have a reference I could read please?

How nice for you, Adam. While I realize that posting articles with no real substance and with nothing worthy of debate (i.e your news articles) is tolerated in other places, I would prefer not to have the subforum I moderate become a playground.

Since the philosophical aspect of this attempt to shore up your ego is - dubious to say the least - this belongs more in free thoughts with "three word story", "fart jokes" and etc.


P.S: As to "fanboys", you might curb that ego if you were to accept that you do not indeed hold all the answers - nor even know to ask all the questions.

P.S: As to "fanboys", you might curb that ego if you were to accept that you do not indeed hold all the answers - nor even know to ask all the questions.

oooh...your verbal venom is no doubt stinging every fiber of his lymph nodes, xev. Well put:cool:

http://backygirly.com/gallery/%5B09%5D%20-%20September%2023,%202002/dustin-middle-finger.jpg

Marquis


This, coming from you slaveboy???


Thanks for showing the depth of your philsophical views. I'm sure everyone appreciates it. Now run along and play.

Boris2


Never heard of this Adam, do you have a reference I could read please?

There is no unclassified reference, anywhere, that I'm aware of. During WW2, Garden Island in Western Australia was an empty bushy island, used by Z-Force as a training ground. Japanese POWs were dumped on the island, and Z-Force went out there to practice killing. They were not to take any weapons or tools, but had to use only their hands and what was there, such as sticks and stones, traps, et cetera. When I was at HMAS Sterling on garden Island, they were building a new wharf, and in the excavations uncovered the old pit with about 4,000 Japanese skulls in it. Z-Force no longer exists.

Xev


How nice for you, Adam. While I realize that posting articles with no real substance and with nothing worthy of debate...

Claims without substance very much remind me of those odd social concepts people hold which have no logical basis. Welcome to slavery.


Since the philosophical aspect of this attempt to shore up your ego is...

Actually someone requested this of me.


... this belongs more in free thoughts with "three word story", "fart jokes" and etc.

Your attempt to disturb me by moving my thread and by comparing it to a fart joke is just sad. I'm glad you are enjoying your new position as Moderator.


As to "fanboys", you might curb that ego if you were to accept that you do not indeed hold all the answers - nor even know to ask all the questions.

In fact you have no idea which answers I might hold and which questions I might be asking. You make many assumptions.

Pumpkins


i will respond to the other points later.

I look forward to it some rational response, thanks.


Now, apart from the fact that this thread was requested by someone, it may serve a dual purpose. For those who make assumptions about my views, perhaps you could avoid making such mistakes by simply asking me about my views here.

Originally posted by Adam
It's pathetic. Rather than wave around a banner bearing the words of your intellectual superiors, come up with your own damn thoughts.

And what are your significant "damn thoughts"?

They are great thinkers, are you? Show us.

And what are your significant "damn thoughts"?

1) Perhaps you could read my essays or ask me something, or read the threads I have bothered to write something decent in.


They are great thinkers,

No, they are famous authors. I've read some famous ones, a bit of Plato and such, and to be honest I found the ideas rather obvious and logical. I generally try to stay away from those thought of as "great thinkers" by teenagers such as yourself, and instead develop my own ideas.


are you? Show us.

1) I never claimed to be a "great thinker", but if you wish to categorise me as such, I won't object. :p

2) Perhaps you could read my essays or ask me something.

Originally posted by Adam
Marquis

Thanks for showing the depth of your philsophical views. I'm sure everyone appreciates it. Now run along and play.

I am playing Adam. You should give yourself more credit, you are rather amusing after all. What's more, the entertainment is free!

"1) Perhaps you could read my essays or ask me something, or read the threads I have bothered to write something decent in."

Where could I find said essays?


"I've read some famous ones, a bit of Plato and such, and to be honest I found the ideas rather obvious and logical"

Okey-dokey. Now, I could make a comment here, but it would assume that you were actually giving us all the information here.

Adam; what classic philosophy have you read?
That last statement alone seems to indicate you've not even read much beyond Plato in Greek philosophy. All of the Greek philosophers disagreed with each other on subjects, primarily morality. So if you found all of their arguements "rather obvious and logical" - you obviously believe in many different and opposing truths on certain topics. Which seems kind of illogical, eh?


"I generally try to stay away from those thought of as "great thinkers" by teenagers such as yourself, and instead develop my own ideas."

It's all well and good to generalize teenagers, but you do realize your fault here, eh? It's not like a bunch of 16 year olds huddled together and decided Plato, Descartes and Nietzsche were "great thinkers". We're talking about the philosophers who have been respected, studied and analyzed by every student of philosophy (not because teens think they're good, because Universities have always thought they were what deserved being discussed) since their original publishing.

You also have a second thought. You, Adam, seem to indicate a belief that reading an established philosopher's work hinders one's ability to develop their own ideas. That's possibly the dumbest comment I've ever encountered on the topic of philosophy. Could you please prove that reading philosophy causes one to be unable to think for themselves? Are you trying to say that it too greatly influences your thought? I've read Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kempf and have never felt my views jaded by those. I've read St. Anselm and had to shake my head in total lack of respect for the man. I'm a Nietzsche fan, but I would hardly say I agree with everything the man said.

Where could I find said essays?

History of alchemy essay (unfinished) at http://bad-sports.com/~archive/alchemy.doc It is best viewed in MS Word so you can see the footnotes.

A series of short essays at http://bad-sports.com/~archive/revolution/

I've shared a few others around with other sciforums users, I may upload them eventually.


Adam; what classic philosophy have you read?

In 1994 I read some Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and a few others. Same year I read some of the Left Bank authors. I've read some Loa Tzu, Kong Fuze or however you want to spell it in English, Sun Tzu, Musashi, Xenophon, and others. I've read a little from others. I stopped reading such the day I attended a conference of the Melbourne Existentialist Society, and discovered hundreds of people without a single original thoguht between them, merely the capacity to quote others.


That last statement alone seems to indicate you've not even read much beyond Plato in Greek philosophy.

No, this is your assumption.


All of the Greek philosophers disagreed with each other on subjects, primarily morality.

Like others known as "philosophers" in other times and places, they often communicated with each others, sent copies of their "books" or essays to each other and so on. I would say they discussed morality more than the stone-writ "they disagreed on morality".


So if you found all of their arguements "rather obvious and logical" - you obviously believe in many different and opposing truths on certain topics. Which seems kind of illogical, eh?

It is indeed entirely possible to arrive at multiple absolutely logical conclusions from one set of data. For example, consider the number series 1,2,... What is the next number in the series?


We're talking about the philosophers who have been respected, studied and analyzed by every student of philosophy (not because teens think they're good, because Universities have always thought they were what deserved being discussed) since their original publishing.

You are missing an important point. It is not necessarily that they were good or geniuses, but that their written works exist at all. A university does not study the works of Bob Jones the genius farmer from Shit Creek Idaho, because there is no book by the man. He may outstrip any published author in logic and imagination, but if he isn't published, people won't be studying his books. People read the works of published authors because they are there. The value of their words does not rest alone in their existence. That their words were written does not make them great. What would make them great is if you actually found in their works some measure of broadened perspective, which would be the point of being a "philosopher", rather than simply being able to quote dead men.


You, Adam, seem to indicate a belief that reading an established philosopher's work hinders one's ability to develop their own ideas.

Only if one is very impressionable and easily caught in someone else's wake. Does the term "brownshirt" mean anything to you? Or "Hitler youth"? How about "YMCA", or "young christians of America"? The facts is, the younger one is, the more impressionable one is. In fact, the younger you are, the more your actual brain-structure is determined by things you learn from outside. This is one reason I liked Kong Fuze's ideas. He was famed for his revolutionary teaching techniques more than anything else. In his view, rather than telling students things, he thought it best to ask them questions about what they thought. In the same wy, I suggest it is far better for people, the younger they are, to be asked questions without the influence of others, and to logically cut away at concepts on their own, to attempt to find some truth.


That's possibly the dumbest comment I've ever encountered on the topic of philosophy.

Kong was stupid?

"I stopped reading such the day I attended a conference of the Melbourne Existentialist Society, and discovered hundreds of people without a single original thoguht between them, merely the capacity to quote others"

So you let the faults of others affect you that greatly? That's rather sad.


"No, this is your assumption."

Ay, genius, that's why I said; "Okey-dokey. Now, I could make a comment here, but it would assume that you were actually giving us all the information here."
And
"seems to indicate"


"I would say they discussed morality more than the stone-writ "they disagreed on morality"."

What point are you trying to make? They disagreed. That's a fact. And not only did they talk by sending each other copies of their work, many of them attended the same schools.


"What is the next number in the series?"

Too few numbers are given to logically say a definite answer.


"People read the works of published authors because they are there. The value of their words does not rest alone in their existence. That their words were written does not make them great."

Er, there was much, much philosophy written and not nearly all of it is frequently studied.


"Only if one is very impressionable and easily caught in someone else's wake"

Then I pose the question again; why did you stop reading classic philosophy?


"Kong was stupid?"

Kong believed that reading, studying and analyzing the works of other made you unable to think for yourself? Or is it more accurate to say he believed that it is more beneficial for children (particularily in the formal occupational age of childhood) to be questioned and discussed with?

Adam: I've read some Lao Tzu, Kong Fuze, Sun Tzu, or however you want to spell it in English.The Pin-Yin transcriptions are Laozi, Kongfuzi, Sunzi. "Zi" means "child" by itself and in a compound is a diminutive. "Lao" means "old" by itself and in a compound is an honorific. "Lao Zi" means "dear and honorable one."

Brain has acieved maximum capacity; Vapid and irksome philosophical disputes contain copious amounts of unwanted and dulling information; Brain shhhhutttiiinnnggg dowwwwwnnn . . . . . slooooowwwwiinggg . . . sloowwwing down

TOTAL SYSTEM FAILURE

Beep! Beep! Beep! -Auxiliary Power/Supply Units Activated!
However an alarming paucity of scholarly energy has become evident and communication outlets are hopelessly congested:

Entering Communication Compensation Mode: Activated Auxiliary Language:
MODUS LINGUAE ROMANARUM (LATIN)

Amicus Bonus Adamus certe non mala volet. Adumus non artifex malorum est. Praestra omnes eum esse socium pacis et amicitiae sciunt. Autem nemo eum sic oppugnet, verba eius sic retinat.

Must Atempt to regain control of hands . . . NOOOO

DELETERIOUS REACTION ENSUING IN 5 4 3 2 1 . . . .
BOOM!

Oh sweet Cthulhu, that is, that is, utterly fucking hilarious. Sweet post, Redoubtable.

So you let the faults of others affect you that greatly? That's rather sad.

I have seen two exceptions. Orthogonal, and an Afghani chap I studied with years ago. You, those MES chaps, and all others do indeed fit the pattern. Thus my decision was rational, based on actual experience, and served the intended purpose.


Ay, genius, that's why I said; "Okey-dokey. Now, I could make a comment here, but it would assume that you were actually giving us all the information here."
And
"seems to indicate"

Your point? Stop making assumptions.


What point are you trying to make? They disagreed. That's a fact. And not only did they talk by sending each other copies of their work, many of them attended the same schools.

Again, the point is not that they had set ideas and decided to remain in disagreement. The point is they remained uncertain, and discussed these matetrs continually.


Too few numbers are given to logically say a definite answer.

I can make several completions to the series, all of which are logically correct. Try harder.


Er, there was much, much philosophy written and not nearly all of it is frequently studied.

Perhaps your schooling is inadequate.


Then I pose the question again; why did you stop reading classic philosophy?

I have answered this many times.


Kong believed that reading, studying and analyzing the works of other made you unable to think for yourself? Or is it more accurate to say he believed that it is more beneficial for children (particularily in the formal occupational age of childhood) to be questioned and discussed with?

Once again: The younger are more impressionable and far more likely to have ideas imprinted on them, without learning such themselves or without developing their own ideas. Please deny this. Now, you are repeating exactly what I said regarding Kong the Sage. To what purpose?

Give it up Tyler. He's not worth it.

You seem to have cracked a few shells in the peanut gallery, eh?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

You have to break a few eggs to live in glass houses.

It's a good topic. You made some excellent points so far, and generally won't find me arguing any particular points. However, in terms of your And another thing post, I wanted to wax a moment for my own ego's sake:

- Fame is a tricky thing. It used to be that we read famous authors because they gained fame through the quality of their work. These days, at least in the US, it seems that people read famous authors because they're famous.

- Part of the point of reviewing dead authors is that history is an ongoing thing, and how many times should we summarize history? A thin comparison would be my posts. People already think they're too long, and I do a good deal of revisiting history in order to justify myself. But what would happen if, in order to post an idea, I had to summarize all the relevant ideas in history before getting to the point?

- This is, of course, a bit extreme. I tend to think I'm aware of the faux-intelligentsia to which you refer, but I could be wrong. You might even be including me, but that is beside the point.

- Think of Weber or Frazer or Marx for a moment. One of the problems I have with dry philosophy texts is that often, they're telling me what I already know. It took me ten years to read the Manifesto not because it was difficult but because it was boring. I'm forcing myself to read Weber because I really should. What's scary about my bent for Weber is that I know his work better by reputation than by direct contact. Nonetheless, I can't shake the feeling that I'm just reviewing what I already know. So far, Weber provides no surprises for me. Frazer's Golden Bough was originally twelve freaking volumes. I think it would be more preferable to simply restate the relevant portion of Frazer than to write a new twelve-volume series just to get back to Square Zero.

That said, please be aware that I only stick my nose in on those points because it's a sensitive subject to me. One of the reasons Americans, at least, don't learn from history is because history is ridiculed. We're happy to indict others by history, but we really hate learning from our own mistakes. "Liberal arts" and "social sciences" are the focus of much derision in the American Imperium, so I'm always happy to pitch for philosophers and historians.

But in the end, I do think (and hope) I understand your point, and offer the above only because it's what comes to mind. Go out and pick up twenty people wearing Anarchy symbols and bring them to me: I might be the only Anarchist in the room. Most of them don't even know their basics, such as my most revered Emma Goldman. In the long run, it's kind of like a Christian that hasn't read the Bible.

I suppose it is of some value, though, to point out that a high percentage of those fanboys and fangirls will become the genuine historians and social scientists in the near future. I've studied Qabalism a little; turns out I'm not supposed to until I'm thirty, based on the idea that life experience is inadequate to foster understanding of the concepts until a certain degree of maturity is attained (and if you don't have it by then, you won't). There's a lesson in there somewhere, I think, but if I look hard enough I might also find the pony. At its best, the banner-waving is a prelude to original thought, and not a substitute thereof.

But such it is. Can we include Jesus Christ on the list of dead philosophers? A thinning of those fanboys and girls would be of some value to the lot of us.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Just as those who wish to fly, no matter their location, must at some point discover the principles of aerodynamics, so it seems to me that those who question themselves and the universe eventually stumble across similar philosophies. Both in ancient China and ancient Greece, philosophers discussed the possibility of the universe being made of of just a small number of natural elements. In both places they developed methods of teaching which revolved more around asking questions than giving dictation.

I have the idea that for those who are actually capable of considering these things fully, no matter their location, people will eventually stumble upon similar ideas. Socrates and Prince Siddhartha had remarkably similar ideas on materialism and the self, based on observation and some simple ideas about what troubles the world. It seems to me that the exact same things will become apparent to all who truly consider such things without emotional bias based in their own fears and angers (such as those who rabidly oppose "society", religion, or any other bone of contention).

When you examine every desire you have, find its cause and cut away all those you deem unnecessary or of no real value, I think it leaves a clearer perspective. This is a realisation you can find in the works of many famous dead dudes. The difference between those dead ones and the fanboys/fangirls is that the fans merely quote such words without having the faintest inkling of what that realisation entails.

Have I made such a realisation? Have I examined myself to such an extent, and cut away the detritus? I began doing so as soon as I could question things, and I consider it an ongoing process. This is one of the things I owe to my parents; an upbringing devoid of any kind of dogma.


PS: To the envious fanboys/fangirls, I know you will have the urge to say "That's arrogant" or "now you compare yourself to Socrates". Please get over the urge and post not from assumption.

There is no unclassified reference, anywhere, that I'm aware of. During WW2, Garden Island in Western Australia was an empty bushy island, used by Z-Force as a training ground. Japanese POWs were dumped on the island, and Z-Force went out there to practice killing. They were not to take any weapons or tools, but had to use only their hands and what was there, such as sticks and stones, traps, et cetera. When I was at HMAS Sterling on garden Island, they were building a new wharf, and in the excavations uncovered the old pit with about 4,000 Japanese skulls in it. Z-Force no longer exists.

I think you have fed a line Adam.

Some questions,

What campaign/arena did these 4000 POWs come from?
Was it a one off shipment or several to the island?
The island was a sub base, was it not?
Was the wharf was being built by the Navy or private contractors? I suspect it would be the latter.

If it happened recently, the uncovering that is, it would be known.


What of feeding these 4000 POWs, that is a lot of people, even if you are going to kill them. I do not believe that Z-Force would be allowed to do this. I worked with a Z-Force guy in the NT, he was the editor of the paper I worked for and I do not think he was the type of guy to go in for murder.

I sincerely hope you can back this claim Adam as it amounts to libel if it is untrue. Not only are you denigrating the memory of these guys but bringing the reputation of the Armed Services into disrepute.

I have also emailed a copy to the Navy.

Turn your caps lock on Adam. It's all I need to complete the picture.

Eulogy, by Tool:

He had alot to say.
He had alot of nothing to say.
We'll miss him. (2x)
We're gonna miss him (2x)
So long.
We wish you well.
You told us how you weren't afraid to die.
Well then, so long.
Don't cry.
Or feel too down.
Not all martyrs see divinity.
But at least you tried.
Standing above the crowd,
He had a voice that was strong and loud.
We'll miss him. (2x)
Ranting and pointing his finger
At everything but his heart.
We'll miss him. (2x)
We're gonna miss him (2x)
No way to recall
What it was that you had said to me,
Like I care at all.
But it was so loud.
You sure could yell.
You took a stand on every little thing
And so loud.
Standing above the crowd,
He had a voice so strong and loud and I
Swallowed his facade cuz I'm so
Eager to identify with
Someone above the ground,
Someone who seemed to feel the same,
Someone prepared to lead the way, with
Someone who would die for me.
Will you?
Will you now?
Would you die for me?
Don't you fuckin' lie.
Don't you step out of line. (3x)
Don't you fuckin' lie.
You've claimed all this time that you would die for me.
Why then are you so surprised when you hear your own eulogy?
You had alot to say.
You had alot of nothing to say.
Come down.
Get off your fuckin cross.
We need the fuckin' space to nail the next fool martyr.
To ascend you must die.
You must be crucified
For your sins and your lies. [sic]
Goodbye...

I'll get you a nice crown of thorns and some nails, slaveboy.

I think you have fed a line Adam.

I suggest you read up on Z-Force.


What campaign/arena did these 4000 POWs come from?
Was it a one off shipment or several to the island?

It was over the duration of WW2.


The island was a sub base, was it not?

The island was a training ground for Z-Force, along with being used for boat training. Now it is a sub training facility among other things. The rumour is that Carnac Island houses a hidden sub base.


Was the wharf was being built by the Navy or private contractors? I suspect it would be the latter.

Yep, private contractors.


If it happened recently, the uncovering that is, it would be known.

All contractors sign the dotten line. They can't discuss anything.


What of feeding these 4000 POWs, that is a lot of people, even if you are going to kill them.

It was over the course of the war, POWs shipped from various camps. You couldn't expect Z-Force to take on 4,000 people like that, all in one go.


I do not believe that Z-Force would be allowed to do this. I worked with a Z-Force guy in the NT, he was the editor of the paper I worked for and I do not think he was the type of guy to go in for murder.

Um, Z-Force was all about murder. It's what they did. They were a special forces unit dedicated to the nastiest missions in the war.


I sincerely hope you can back this claim Adam as it amounts to libel if it is untrue. Not only are you denigrating the memory of these guys but bringing the reputation of the Armed Services into disrepute.

You do realise that military forces kill people, right? Heck, even my ship did it, and we were never at war with anyone.

http://www.gunplot.net/zforce/zforce2.html
http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/ausarmy/zforce.htm
http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/ausarmy/ernestgregg.htm

quote:
You also have a second thought. You, Adam, seem to indicate a belief that reading an established philosopher's work hinders one's ability to develop their own ideas. That's possibly the dumbest comment I've ever encountered on the topic of philosophy. Could you please prove that reading philosophy causes one to be unable to think for themselves?
well done.

"Cogito Ergo Sum"......Descarte was right of course..
Adam, all you are doing is discussing left or right wing archetypal negative thoughts , and you are alienating yourself due to ignorance..The great philosophers have given us a legacy to build on...
The analogy I will use which is linked to common sense is: "HOW CAN YOU WRITE A NOVEL IF YOU HAVE NOT EVEN LEARNT THE ALPHABET"... learn the basics of philosophy..then we could have a discussion..
and do NOT TREAT EVERYONE AS BEING NON INTELLECTUAL..you will always get negative replies......

a touch of Humility will not go amiss..
Dominic

"Cogito Ergo Sum"......Descarte was right of course..
Adam, all you are doing is discussing left or right wing archetypal negative thoughts , and you are alienating yourself due to ignorance..The great philosophers have given us a legacy to build on...

As others have said "Why re-invent the wheel?", and in some ways I agree. It may be beneficial to read the works of those gone before, to stimulate new ideas in the reader, but I tend to think one should wait at least until after puberty to do so. I have already said why, several times.


The analogy I will use which is linked to Philosophy is: "HOW CAN YOU WRITE A NOVEL IF YOU HAVE NOT EVEN LEARNT THE ALPHABET"...

The problem with your analogy? Thought comes before reading. Reason came before written language. Similarly, one can develop a philosophy before reading the words of the dead.


learn the basics of philosophy..then we could have a discussion..

To assume I have not learnt such is, well, an assumption.


and do NOT TREAT EVERYONE AS BEING NON INTELLECTUAL..you will always get negatie replies..a touch of Humility will not go amiss..

I do not treat everyone as being non-intellectual, merely those who have demonstrated being so. I see no reason to display humility before the ignorant.

Don't worry about showing humility Adam, we're more content having your monster ego to make fun of. :D

I haven't seen you post a single thing of any value whatsoever in many months, but here is your chance. Do you have any possible logical backing for referring to me as a "slave"? Can you back that up, or is it more of your "Fuck Mohammed" type brilliance? If you can not support your statements, then I suggest you would perhaps be better off at the Korn forums.

Originally posted by Adam
Just as those who wish to fly, no matter their location, must at some point discover the principles of aerodynamics, so it seems to me that those who question themselves and the universe eventually stumble across similar philosophies. Both in ancient China and ancient Greece, philosophers discussed the possibility of the universe being made of of just a small number of natural elements. In both places they developed methods of teaching which revolved more around asking questions than giving dictation.

I have the idea that for those who are actually capable of considering these things fully, no matter their location, people will eventually stumble upon similar ideas. Socrates and Prince Siddhartha had remarkably similar ideas on materialism and the self, based on observation and some simple ideas about what troubles the world. It seems to me that the exact same things will become apparent to all who truly consider such things without emotional bias based in their own fears and angers (such as those who rabidly oppose "society", religion, or any other bone of contention).

When you examine every desire you have, find its cause and cut away all those you deem unnecessary or of no real value, I think it leaves a clearer perspective. This is a realisation you can find in the works of many famous dead dudes. The difference between those dead ones and the fanboys/fangirls is that the fans merely quote such words without having the faintest inkling of what that realisation entails.

Have I made such a realisation? Have I examined myself to such an extent, and cut away the detritus? I began doing so as soon as I could question things, and I consider it an ongoing process. This is one of the things I owe to my parents; an upbringing devoid of any kind of dogma.


PS: To the envious fanboys/fangirls, I know you will have the urge to say "That's arrogant" or "now you compare yourself to Socrates". Please get over the urge and post not from assumption.

Regarding this post... I do not imply in this business of "realisation" any kind of elitism. On the contrary, as expressed in that post, I consider it a common factor for all who delve into such things. However, obviously, very few ever bother to publish their thoughts on such things.

Adam:

Oh indeed.

GERMAN WHITE WINES FUCKING KICK ASS!

Korn? Bah, mallcore trash.

I havent seen you post anything of any value in the last few months either, whatsu... er... Adam. Your assumption that you've "proved" your position is of any more value than anyone else's is... well, an assumption.

Apparently Xev was unable to support her words. Let's see if you can do better.

What position did I establish, which you claim I have not proven? What assumption did I make? Support your words.

GERMAN WHITE WINES FUCKING KICK ASS!
I still prefer RED, full-bodied of course.

Adam:
I still remember that conversation and my post which you refused to answer.
Of course you backed out because you couldn't prove a shit. You gave some theory that was very loosely related and didn't help your point at all.
Your logic is just screwed Adam, I don't see the point of any discussion with you.
You want us to explain very simple things to you, and still you don't get them afterwards.

I still remember that conversation and my post which you refused to answer.

What was it? Show me, and I'll answer your question for you.


Your logic is just screwed Adam,

Demonstrate this, or admit your words are feeble and hollow.


I don't see the point of any discussion with you.

And yet you post. Hypocrite.

What was it? Show me, and I'll answer your question for you.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?&threadid=15015&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

Demonstrate this, or admit your words are feeble and hollow.

I don't have to demonstrate anything to you Adam.
And yet you post. Hypocrite.

This is precisely the shit that makes the conversation with you unbearable.
Who said this is a discussion?

To me it seems more like a pre-ignore message.

quote:The problem with your analogy? Thought comes before reading. Reason came before written language. Similarly, one can develop a philosophy before reading the words of the dead.



ADAM...If you couldn't read...and the thought of going to toilet came into your head , would you "shit" in a room marked:
"for people who cannot read..crap here!!!

To be original in philosophy you will have to be super intelligent,
The only thing you have come up with so far is positive and negative thought patterns which are archetypal to all living human beings...
Pride , vanity and selfishness come from the realms of these negative thoughts, which will lead to insanity, therefore, Adam
lowliness,unselfishnees , humility are the signs of a person with wisdom.....Maybe we should start a thread:
"psychoanalyse Adam if you dare"called:

"ADAM'S APPLE"!!!or

"ROOT VEGETABLE"

CHEER UP DOMINIC:D :

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?&threadid=15015&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

Show me, in particular, the question you want answered from that thread. I'm not going to read the whole thing.


I don't have to demonstrate anything to you Adam.

No, you don't. You can simply make a baseless statement and walk away, leaving all with the knowledge that your statement was indeed baseless. Congratulations.

Pride , vanity and selfishness come from the realms of these negative thoughts, which will lead to insanity, therefore, Adam
lowliness,unselfishnees , humility are the signs of a person with wisdom..
Heh. I think Adam supports the latter.
The latter values are the values of a archetypal person, a real good slave.
Selfishness is the most basic will there is.
Don't think that if the some values are bad their opposites are good.

I'm still waiting for you to post the question you mentioned, and to support your earlier statement. Can you do either or both? If not, why are you wasting bandwidth?

Show me, in particular, the question you want answered from that thread. I'm not going to read the whole thing.
Read my last post. It's that simple.
It's the Hamilton's rule. We were arguing: you are a slave to the masses by being good, etc.
You were saying it's natural.
Hamilton rule only applies to your family members, so it's irrelevant.

I'm still waiting for you to post the question you mentioned, and to support your earlier statement. Can you do either or both? If not, why are you wasting bandwidth?

That is such a feeble provocation.

quote:The problem with your analogy? Thought comes before reading. Reason came before written language. Similarly, one can develop a philosophy before reading the words of the dead.



ADAM...If you couldn't read...and the thought of going to toilet came into your head , would you "shit" in a room marked:
"for people who cannot read..crap here!!!

To be original in philosophy you will have to be super intelligent,
The only thing you have come up with so far is positive and negative thought patterns which are archetypal to all living human beings...
Pride , vanity and selfishness come from the realms of these negative thoughts, which will lead to insanity, therefore, Adam
lowliness,unselfishnees , humility are the signs of a person with wisdom.....Maybe we should start a thread:
"psychoanalyse Adam if you dare"called:

"ADAM'S APPLE"!!!or

"ROOT VEGETABLE"

MAYBE, YOU MAY LIKE TO OPEN THE DISCUSSION YOU TWO ARE HAVING, GET SOME OTHER THOUGHTS ON IT
DOMINIC:cool: :m:

1) I have actually answered that before, a couple of times. In case you missed it, have a look in here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8458

2) How does wanting to do good for others make one a slave? You assume it is not a matter of free will to do so. Seriously, logically explain how choosing to be nice to other people makes one a slave.

3) Perhaps you can have an attempt at a decent response here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15358

Originally posted by ndrs
That is such a feeble provocation.
Not provocation, but invitation. Support your statements. If not, why bother making them in the first place?

1) I have actually answered that before, a couple of times. In case you missed it, have a look in here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...=&threadid=8458

What was your main argument there. I don't see it.

"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."
This doesn't necessarily hold true. For example, I might not mind swearing but other people do. I might support Anarchism but other people don't, etc.. This just doesn't hold anymore.
Advancement of humanity? People will remain eternally stupid. Being good to each other would probably only make people feel comfy/lazy, that's why everything went down in Communism. Don't you agree?
Selfishness is one of the main reasons humanity is advancing.
2) How does wanting to do good for others make one a slave? You assume it is not a matter of free will to do so. Seriously, logically explain how choosing to be nice to other people makes one a slave.
1. From my point of view you are a slave as an individual. If I don't listen in to being good, I am more free. Therefore from my point of view you are more restricted/slave.2. Also being nice to other people usually requires responsibility. After all, you have to care about the people. Responsibility binds you therefore making you a slave.
3. Being good makes you do what other people consider good. Which means you don't do good for yourself (in most cases), which means you are serving the masses - as a slave.


3) Perhaps you can have an attempt at a decent response here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...&threadid=15358

Gosh, I wrote a decent size response there. look at the start

Not provocation, but invitation. Support your statements. If not, why bother making them in the first place?

Could be a few reasons:
1. I just want to make fun out of you.
2. It makes me laugh to see you angry.
3. I am experimenting with you.
4. Etc..
I could think of some more reasons.

You shouldn't assume I am good.

What was your main argument there. I don't see it.

There was no "argument". Just a statement of beliefs.


"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."
This doesn't necessarily hold true. For example, I might not mind swearing but other people do. I might support Anarchism but other people don't, etc.. This just doesn't hold anymore.

Abstract it a bit more, from "I might not mind swearing but other people do" to "I won't do generally rude or harmful things to them, and I hope they in turn will refrain from doing such to me".


Advancement of humanity? People will remain eternally stupid. Being good to each other would probably only make people feel comfy/lazy,

Increased education rates, especially over the past three centuries, would seem to suggest otherwise. Accompanying increased education rates we see the rise of labour unions, foreign aid, internaitional regulatry agencies, greater transport between cultures allowing greater communication of ideas, and more. Heck the internet alone allows a massive avenue for the exchange of ideas. But then we get people like Whatsupyall who make irrational statements and don't support them.


that's why everything went down in Communism. Don't you agree?

What are you talking about? When did this happen to which communist state?


Selfishness is one of the main reasons humanity is advancing.

It is indeed a driving force. However, I suggest there are alternatives.


1. From my point of view you are a slave as an individual. If I don't listen in to being good, I am more free. Therefore from my point of view you are more restricted/slave.2. Also being nice to other people usually requires responsibility. After all, you have to care about the people. Responsibility binds you therefore making you a slave.

And if I take on responsibility entirely by choice, knowing full well all the ramifications?


3. Being good makes you do what other people consider good. Which means you don't do good for yourself (in most cases), which means you are serving the masses - as a slave.

No. Being good means you do what you think is good. GB made this point a while ago. As for myself, I tend to base my ideas on "good" around evolution and evolutionary psychology.

Could be a few reasons:
1. I just want to make fun out of you.
2. It makes me laugh to see you angry.

Assumptions. Not healthy.


You shouldn't assume I am good.

I don't. I judge solely by your words, including making baseless statements.

Once again: The younger are more impressionable and far more likely to have ideas imprinted on them, without learning such themselves or without developing their own ideas. Please deny this. Now, you are repeating exactly what I said regarding Kong the Sage. To what purpose? [/B]

BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! SPECIMEN, ADAM, DISPLAYS INORDINATE SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS!
HOWEVER, IT SEEMS THAT ALL ACCESSIBLE AND COMPATIBLE SOURCES WITHIN RANGE VERIFY THIS STATEMENT!!!!
ADAM IS CORRECT! BINGO!

Despite this, Adam should, being the erudite, donish scholar he is, recall that reading classical authors is hardly detrimental. It increases one's knowledge of the past. Those who don't study the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.

Also, if you are mature enough to know that deranged and sordid authors like Neitzche can influence you, you aren't impressionable.

Losing Control . . . BEEEEEEP BEEP BEEEEEP

Oppugnare et agere sic Adamum, soci et amici et fratres, petete. Ecce, est frustra. Ego tanto id nec amo nec delecto. Cupiens multam pacem non belllum sum certe et ero certe.

TO BE CONTINUED MUST GO TO LYCEUM< NO I MEAN COLOSSEUM< NO ARGGGGHHHHH GYM!!!!!!

"quote:
Selfishness is one of the main reasons humanity is advancing.

It is indeed a driving force. However, I suggest there are alternatives."
-Adam


NO ADAM, there are no alternatives; Human rapacity, avarice, cupidity, and envy, all accumulated and compressed into one little collective package, ARE the human drive; The Collapse of the Soviets verifies this.

It is indeed a driving force. However, I suggest there are alternatives.

Humility, patience and obedience, for example.

Now be a good slave and get Xevie a beer.

Really, I am thoroughly enjoying watching everyone play "Hop on Pop" with Adam, but what keeps me doubled over with laughter is how so many of the critics showed their hand early, and are now trying to convince everyone that a junk hand beats a pair of sixes.

Seriously, I smile because it's Adam going through the wringer, and on that specific point, I reserve open sympathy; after spending the spring and summer in the grinder, I'm just happy to see one of the butchers turned to hamburger.

But none of it changes the facts that Adam has a couple of legitimate points in that topic post that people seem to be ignoring.

To Adam: Requests or not, this is still all your fault. You should know better than to post honest considerations at Sciforums. If there's one thing the rabble around here can't stand, it's the idea that someone might be thinking. ;)

guh-rinning,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa,

What you fail to understand is that Adam is not merely the current popular whipping boy. Has it occurred to you that in arguning with Adam in the past, some of us have learned not to treat him with respect, but with derision? Do you think that suddenly Adam has become an object of amusement for no reason whatever? I had assumed you smarter than this, but apparently not.

Adam does have some good points. Some of those points have been put forward by myself and others such as Xev, ndrs etc in the past, although we might have come to different conclusions than Adam. He has put forward nothing new, but a conglomeration of our thoughts, the thoughts of dead philosphers, and a little bit of Orthoganal for flavouring. Yet, he passes himself off as a thinker.

Adam is a hypocrite, Tiassa. If you'd read through his posts a litte more carefully you should have seen it.

Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
The Pin-Yin transcriptions are Laozi, Kongfuzi, Sunzi. "Zi" means "child" by itself and in a compound is a diminutive. "Lao" means "old" by itself and in a compound is an honorific. "Lao Zi" means "dear and honorable one." Or "Old Kid" if you wanna have fun with it.

NO ADAM, there are no alternatives; Human rapacity, avarice, cupidity, and envy, all accumulated and compressed into one little collective package, ARE the human drive; The Collapse of the Soviets verifies this.

1) Were Socrates, Prince Siddhartha, and Ghandi driven by such things?

2) Were Socrates, Prince Siddhartha, and Ghandi human?

Seriously, I smile because it's Adam going through the wringer, and on that specific point, I reserve open sympathy; after spending the spring and summer in the grinder, I'm just happy to see one of the butchers turned to hamburger.

Well, I did actually ask for it. I asked those who make assumptions about me to support their assumptions or simply request clarification of my views. So far, all I have seen is more assumption.


To Adam: Requests or not, this is still all your fault. You should know better than to post honest considerations at Sciforums. If there's one thing the rabble around here can't stand, it's the idea that someone might be thinking. ;)

Well, thought is the enemy of conformity. People like to fit in, to be part of a clique, to be one of the mob. It's easier than thinking.

Adam is a hypocrite, Tiassa. If you'd read through his posts a litte more carefully you should have seen it.

A simple task. Demonstrate my hypocrisy. I'm sure you can support your assertion, that you're not just another Whatsupyall. Give it a try.

"I have seen two exceptions. Orthogonal, and an Afghani chap I studied with years ago. You, those MES chaps, and all others do indeed fit the pattern. Thus my decision was rational, based on actual experience, and served the intended purpose."

Oh? So you then of course can show me where I simply regurgitate philosophers? I really can't remember the last time I quoted a philosopher on this site. Unless you consider Woody Allen a philosopher (ha, well I do, actually), then I really can't remember.


"Your point? Stop making assumptions."

I know you don't have a memory past two posts, but; this, Adam, is why I asked the question. So that before I got deep into it I would know the truth. That's why I said "seems to indicate". Because I didn't know for sure. Do you understand?


"I can make several completions to the series, all of which are logically correct. Try harder."

A variety of numbers fit the series; but there is no logical way to prove that only one answer is possible.


"Perhaps your schooling is inadequate."

You study Herbert Spencer?
How about Thomas Reid?
Sarah Margeret Fuller?
You study these folk in University? Or how about high school?


"Now, you are repeating exactly what I said regarding Kong the Sage. To what purpose?"

Exactly - youth. Now Adam, you could hardly be mistaken for modest; so it would shock me to think that you consider your intellect or physical developement to be at the same level as a child.

Originally posted by Adam
A simple task. Demonstrate my hypocrisy. I'm sure you can support your assertion, that you're not just another Whatsupyall. Give it a try.

Here's an even better idea, Adam. Why don't you do it yourself? You say you are currently in the process of deconstructing your self in the pursuit of finding more truth. You have failed to demonstrate to me that you're even remotely capable of it.

I care enough to write a few lines here, but not enough to spend my time quoting various segments of your posts for consideration. I began to do that last night, but lost interest. The reason for this is the same reason I'm not a schoolteacher... I have no patience for pointing out what should be obvious, unless the one I'm pointing it out for has my respect to begin with. A personal failing of mine. In addition to that, I've been labelled an "angst-ridden teenager" once by you already... an assumption which is not only erroneous (although I do wish I was still a teenager, or preferably still in my twenties) but demonstrates quite clearly your attitude towards all those who do not agree with you. Your "do unto others" philosophy fails as soon as you begin to recieve negative replies, and hardly merits serious consideration.

I also find it rather amusing that you're beginning to use my own insults against me. Trying to, at any rate. If you consider yourself an original thinker, perhaps you should begin by not resorting to the old "no, you are" argument.

Oh? So you then of course can show me where I simply regurgitate philosophers? I really can't remember the last time I quoted a philosopher on this site. Unless you consider Woody Allen a philosopher (ha, well I do, actually), then I really can't remember.

Actually, I don't memorise your posts, sorry. And I have no intention of reading many now. Perhaps you haven't.


A variety of numbers fit the series; but there is no logical way to prove that only one answer is possible.

And that was entirely my point. Congratulations.


You study Herbert Spencer?
How about Thomas Reid?
Sarah Margeret Fuller?
You study these folk in University? Or how about high school?

I think I read some Margaret Fuller once, but I don't recall reading the other two. In Politics we read a bit of Marx and Plato, in Psych we read some of the famous shrinks, in English we read from some of the Left Bank bunch and others, in History we read a bit of the more ancient ones.


Now Adam, you could hardly be mistaken for modest

Now here is a question for you. What have I said that aggrandises myself?

Here's an even better idea, Adam. Why don't you do it yourself? You say you are currently in the process of deconstructing your self in the pursuit of finding more truth. You have failed to demonstrate to me that you're even remotely capable of it.

I have no wish to demonstrate much of anything to you. What I do wish, for your own benefit as much as anyone else's, is for you to support your assertions. You make many yet support none.


I also find it rather amusing that you're beginning to use my own insults against me. Trying to, at any rate. If you consider yourself an original thinker, perhaps you should begin by not resorting to the old "no, you are" argument.

It was quite deliberate, an effort to point out to you some of your fundamental hypocrisy. Like Whatsupyall, you make assertions with no support. Then you accuse others of being like Whatsupyall. And you don't see it. Now, logically, you have the choice of supporting all your previous assertions, or admitting you are exactly like that which you decry.

MarquisHas it occurred to you that in arguning with Adam in the past, some of us have learned not to treat him with respect, but with derision? Do you think that suddenly Adam has become an object of amusement for no reason whatever? You dare to ask me these questions? Some of the people bagging on him used to tell me I was being too hard on him.I had assumed you smarter than this, but apparently not. I generally don't pull rank based on posts, but this time I am: I've had more nasty arguments with Adam than your handle has posts (presently 94) at Sciforums.

I would assume you smart enough to read up and know what's going on when you're taking on a poster (e.g. Adam) with 6900 posts, but that's my mistake.Adam is a hypocrite, Tiassa. If you'd read through his posts a litte more carefully you should have seen it. And I thank you for that laugh. I've probably called Adam a hypocrite more than 94 times. You're a day late, a dollar short, and about 3 IQ points separate from an eggplant this time out.

Rarely, The Marquis, do I get to say so forcefully, enthusiastically, and with such peace of conscience what I say to you now: If you do not know of what you speak, you probably should keep your mouth shut.

Seriously, I love watching Adam take unnecessary heat if only for the fact that he's so good at giving it. I love watching Xev abuse her former quivering fantasy and tag-team partner. This is great, especially since his critics are so predictably on cue. A couple of the philosopher fankids, had they understood the philosophies they espouse, would have been smart enough to not slap back at him.

I know he's an irritating bastard. But since I got used to it, we get along better. Sure he posts acres of worthless topics some days, but this obviously isn't a violation of site policy, else a stop would be enforced; to the other, I just ignore the ones I don't care about, and move on--I don't see what's so hard about it. Sure he misses a lot of points, but who doesn't? By the time this topic is done, he will owe many people thanks for proving his point. And I owe Adam many thanks for providing me this ridiculous spectacle to watch. Like I told Adam: At least it's him this time out

And, really, Marquis, you couldn't come up with something better than that one-liner to sound your arrival in the topic?

As I noted earlier today: But none of it changes the fact that Adam has a couple of legitimate points in that topic post that people seem to be ignoring. If you disrespect the ideas enough to fight with the person instead, what do I or anyone else watching owe you insofar as respect?

The irony of the present situation stretches back over three years for me, long before I ever encountered Adam at this site. Maybe I'll tell you the story sometime. In the meantime, Marquis, thank you so much for the chuckle. I hope Adam found it as amusing as I did.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Adam :

I have a third option, as well. To continue treating you with the contempt you invite. Your reply above was no more than another "no, you are".

I asked those who make assumptions about me to support their assumptions or simply request clarification of my views.Adam:

Especially when it comes to the support for their assumptions ...

Isn't that my line?

Eventually it gets old. I just stopped paying attention to you for a while, and without our conflicts to entertain people every day, they sought a new bloodsport to watch. Maybe over the long run we can inspire some of them to get some cajones and actually take part, instead of just hollering for a massacre.

(Did you think I wasn't surprised when the atheists decided a defensible atheism was intolerable at Sciforums? After spending time in the trenches defending atheism against Christian accusations on those very points of objectivity and ethical and moral conduct, I was supremely surprised to find that I set the bar too high for so many atheists to comprehend. What, though, did you do to forfeit your value to some of your present critics? I would have paid closer attention to the growing rift if I'd noticed it coming.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

*Xev laughs hysterically*

Adam, Tiassa, you two do realize how ridiculous you are? Lighten up, have a beer, smoke a joint, remove the gerbils from your - right. And calm down.

I live to entertain.

I have a third option, as well. To continue treating you with the contempt you invite. Your reply above was no more than another "no, you are".What, just because you don't know what you're talking about? How many of Adam's posts have you actually read? How many of mine? How many of those posts intersect or collide? And yet you dare ask me such questions?

When you go and do your homework and figure out exactly what I'm talking about, you'll see why you make me laugh. I mean, people blurt out some stupid things, but you really did set a standard.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Actually, Xev, I'd probably prefer the gerbils from yours. They've got to be diamonds by now. :rolleyes:

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

"Actually, I don't memorise your posts, sorry. And I have no intention of reading many now. Perhaps you haven't."

Nope, and I'd appreciate not being told that I do. If you read many of the Nietzsche-oriented threads you'll note I don't post, as it tends to be quite repetitive.

Actually, I correct myself, I have recently quoted a philosopher. I posted a thread on Aristotlean Ethics. It got about 2 replies.


"I think I read some Margaret Fuller once, but I don't recall reading the other two. In Politics we read a bit of Marx and Plato, in Psych we read some of the famous shrinks, in English we read from some of the Left Bank bunch and others, in History we read a bit of the more ancient ones."

You cannot possibly hope to understand the developement of Communism without reading Marx. I would say it's integral to read Plato's Republic in understanding the developement of politics. And I imagine you would hardly argue the necessity of studying Freud, Jung, Skinner et al in understanding the developement of psychology and psycho-analysis.


"Now here is a question for you. What have I said that aggrandises myself?"

'Now run along and play' - To quote you in a discussion we had, Adam:

Mocking another person's intellectualy capacity does not make you smart, does not lend credenc eto your arguments, does nothing at all good for you. In fact it does quite the opposite. For your own good, I suggest you learn to do better.

Hmmm, maybe this is better proof that you're a hypocrit. However, it does seem that you enjoy insuting people's intellectual capacity and yet are fully aware of the fact that it is a poor and rather lowly thing to do.

Isn't that my line?

I did tell you once, long ago, when you were sure I was dead set against you rather than your opinions, that I would enjoy arguing with you over a beer. That doesn't mean you're not wrong; you are.


What, though, did you do to forfeit your value to some of your present critics? I would have paid closer attention to the growing rift if I'd noticed it coming.

I put my shoes up on the coffee table.

Tiassa :

Most of the above rebuke was well-deserved, Tiassa. I apologise. Not enough coffee, is my only excuse.

One or two of the above I do take issue with, however.

And, really, Marquis, you couldn't come up with something better than that one-liner to sound your arrival in the topic?

Not really. I could have posted a paragraph or two showing his assumptions, but from past experience learned that it would have been a waste of time. I, however, am not meek enough to let things pass without some form of comment, hence the short reply.

As I noted earlier today: But none of it changes the fact that Adam has a couple of legitimate points in that topic post that people seem to be ignoring.

Which points? I noticed a couple I agreed with as well (a point I mentioned earlier) but only those which have been said by Xev, Myself, ndrs and others in the past in other topics.

Tiassa :

regarding your post of 11:01 (my time) that reply was not directed at you, we posted at close to the same time. I've since edited it to make clear who I was referring to. Your trigger finger isn't exactly slow either, is it *smile*

Actually, I correct myself, I have recently quoted a philosopher. I posted a thread on Aristotlean Ethics. It got about 2 replies.

Where is this? I'd like to read it.


You cannot possibly hope to understand the developement of Communism without reading Marx. I would say it's integral to read Plato's Republic in understanding the developement of politics. And I imagine you would hardly argue the necessity of studying Freud, Jung, Skinner et al in understanding the developement of psychology and psycho-analysis.

I agree that it is beneficial to read such. Although personally I think Skinner was a complete fruitcake. However, I believe people can reach the same conclusions reached by Skinner, Freud, Plato, and others, on their own, and indeed should be encouraged to do so, for healthy mental development. I daresay you may have read some such authors, at some point in your life, and thought "Yeah, I already knew that".


'Now run along and play'

However, it does seem that you enjoy insuting people's intellectual capacity and yet are fully aware of the fact that it is a poor and rather lowly thing to do.

It is indeed, and I am fully aware of it. Obviously it is an attempt to have people go away and post elsewhere about masturbating in public, so we can have only posts dedicated to the topic, by those capable of thought.


Hmmm, maybe this is better proof that you're a hypocrit.

Telling kids who post about public masturbation and gerbiuls up the butt to "run along and play" is hypocritical? I tend to think it is entirely justified.

"Where is this? I'd like to read it."

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14769
It didn't stay on the top lines of the Philosophy section for very long, as no one responded to it.


"However, I believe people can reach the same conclusions reached by Skinner, Freud, Plato, and others, on their own, and indeed should be encouraged to do so, for healthy mental development"

The developement of the theory of the subconscious (ay, I use the word unconscious - but Freud didn't) is not exactly something I believe many folk could reach without any knowledge. However, the whole idea is rather common knowledge nowadays. Not to mention that while many of us have had ideas similar to those of famous thinkers we must note that this comes (a) with background knowledge these folks did not have and (b) we (the common man, if you will) tend not to be able to prove them. Or, haven't proven the ideas, more exactly. Skinner made the experiments to show his point.


"I daresay you may have read some such authors, at some point in your life, and thought "Yeah, I already knew that"."

Man did almost everything because he wants sex. Yeah, I had that idea long before reading Freud. However I was not quite able to formulate my ideas or logically prove them nearly as well as some of teh authors I agreed with.


"It is indeed, and I am fully aware of it. Obviously it is an attempt to have people go away and post elsewhere about masturbating in public, so we can have only posts dedicated to the topic, by those capable of thought."

Again, I would assume you fully realize that you are doing little but enticing people to reply. It's not like I expect someone to sit there and say "Oh, well Tyler says I should go play now. I'll just go get my baseball bat!"


"Telling kids who post about public masturbation and gerbiuls up the butt to "run along and play" is hypocritical? I tend to think it is entirely justified."

Ahhhh, but you've a number of times used that line. On myself, included. Whether warranted or not seems hardly the question, eh? Two wrongs don't tend to make a right.

The developement of the theory of the subconscious (ay, I use the word unconscious - but Freud didn't) is not exactly something I believe many folk could reach without any knowledge.

I think the general idea has existed for tens of millennia at the very least. The Australian "dreamtime", the Greeks and their psychomantiums, the American Indians and their spirit world. I think all were based on the idea of a world we are aware of (conscious) and another level or layer of reality (sub/unconscious). Even the old European alchemists liked to divide the human psyche into different levels or spheres or such.


Skinner made the experiments to show his point.

True. Consider Pavlov. Did he do anything that dog trainers hadn't known for millennia?


Man did almost everything because he wants sex. Yeah, I had that idea long before reading Freud. However I was not quite able to formulate my ideas or logically prove them nearly as well as some of teh authors I agreed with.

Do you think you would have been able to more logically and fully formulate your ideas on those matters by yourself, given time, without reading Freud?


Again, I would assume you fully realize that you are doing little but enticing people to reply.

Indeed. And look at the replies. Many baseless assertions, and me urging their authors to do more. What does that suggest?

"I think the general idea has existed for tens of millennia at the very least. The Australian "dreamtime", the Greeks and their psychomantiums, the American Indians and their spirit world. I think all were based on the idea of a world we are aware of (conscious) and another level or layer of reality (sub/unconscious). Even the old European alchemists liked to divide the human psyche into different levels or spheres or such."

That's like saying the general idea of evolution exist because of mythology which said animals created man. The fact that people felt when they died their "spirit" went to the great ooga-booga in the sky hardly shows they understood or even grasped at the idea of the unconscious.


"True. Consider Pavlov. Did he do anything that dog trainers hadn't known for millennia?"

Ay, he developed a theory of Classical Conditioning and how it affects humans. Skinner extended this more to children, as I recall.


"Do you think you would have been able to more logically and fully formulate your ideas on those matters by yourself, given time, without reading Freud?"

I think reading Freud alone on the topic of psychology would have greatly hindered my understanding of the human mind. Then again, I rejected much of Freud (as most people do) when I read him. I think my ability to use logic has increased because I have read a wide range of authors on certain topics. Had I simply read Plato, Descartes and Nietzsche in philosophy, there isn't a doubt in my mind I'd be remarkably narrow-minded on the topic. Abstinence, I believe, is not the answer; rather, wide variety. Read enough authors who disagree with each other and you'll find it hard to be a slave to one, or a few. Read enough authors who disagree with each other and you'll find, I believe, the only thing you gather from all of them is an ability to reason.


"Indeed. And look at the replies. Many baseless assertions, and me urging their authors to do more. What does that suggest?"

The manner you tend to ask for more in is hardly encouraging. More insulting, actually. And you've debated long enough, I take it, to realize this never gets the best results.

That's like saying the general idea of evolution exist because of mythology which said animals created man. The fact that people felt when they died their "spirit" went to the great ooga-booga in the sky hardly shows they understood or even grasped at the idea of the unconscious.

The examples I gave do not necessarily revolve around concepts of an afterlife. They revolve more around the idea that their is a conscious world and another world.


Abstinence, I believe, is not the answer; rather, wide variety.

Quite possibly.


Read enough authors who disagree with each other and you'll find it hard to be a slave to one, or a few. Read enough authors who disagree with each other and you'll find, I believe, the only thing you gather from all of them is an ability to reason.

Well, I certainly agree.


The manner you tend to ask for more in is hardly encouraging. More insulting, actually. And you've debated long enough, I take it, to realize this never gets the best results.

Actually I tend to think that if you push peoples' buttons in this manner, they post more and more inane crap (such as Xev's "fuck Mohammed" or Marquis's many basless assertions) until they reach a critical mass of bullshit and realise what they are doing.

"The examples I gave do not necessarily revolve around concepts of an afterlife. They revolve more around the idea that their is a conscious world and another world."

Perhaps this is best left to make another thread out of, but..
To say that a distinction between worlds is a precursor to the distinction between conscious and unconscious is a little...misleading to say the least. I believe it is impossible to say that the general idea was known about for so long because of the nature of the belief ancients held.

While the conscious/unconscious is a matter of brain activity and internal human functions; it seems the seperation in Greek, Australian (which I admittedly know nothing about) and North American ancient culture's worlds comes from an entirely different source. The Indians (I don't want to get into a debate now but the word Indian is not offensive. It did not come from Columbus thinking he was in India; there was no India at the time. It was Hindustan. It came from his poor Spanish writing; Un pueblo in Dios - A people in God. That is what he called them. In Dios.) did not sit around and say "hey, you know I think my thoughts are influenced by another part of my brain, that I can't quite tap into, eh?". With all likelyhood the ideas of "other worlds" took form because of human inability to comprehend death.


"Well, I certainly agree."

Excellent. That might mark a first for us.


"Actually I tend to think that if you push peoples' buttons in this manner, they post more and more inane crap (such as Xev's "fuck Mohammed" or Marquis's many basless assertions) until they reach a critical mass of bullshit and realise what they are doing."

And that benefits neither you, them or sciforums. On top of which I would safely say that 'they' do not "realise what they are doing". Instead, they get frustrated and continue to think they are right to the point where you are simply considered an ass. You win in your mind and they win in their mind. Nothing accomplished.

Originally posted by Adam
1) Were Socrates, Prince Siddhartha, and Ghandi driven by such things?

2) Were Socrates, Prince Siddhartha, and Ghandi human?

:confused: Hmmm I am thinking economically. WAIT . . . No I amnot thinking economically

Adam, human drive is greed PERIOD, PERIOD GODDAMNIT

The original comment was "Selfishness is one of the main reasons humanity is advancing."
I insist that it is the ONLY reason for human advancement. For surely we cannot attribute the multitudinious successes of man to the pitiful collection of individuals whom we contemplate and commemorate as saints. These meager few good men, who include Buddha (or Prince Siddartha Gautama), Socrates (Whom I believe not to be as wondrous and benevolent as various persons espouse.), and Ghandi are an astonishing exception. All of these venerable saints of our past comprise a paltry minority motivated by not vice, but virtue. Of course, ascribing all human triumph to these men is ridiculous. Human advancement can only be credited to the insatiable hunger of man for an improved existence (This hunger for luxury and joy can only be defined as greed.).
Do you think industry burgeoned because of the diatribes and doctrines of saints? Do you think we developed technology after Voltaire or some other mob-enamoured scholar diseminated some sublime revelation? Do you think inventors and engineers and designers are concerned with human welfare or acts of philanthropy? NO! Humanity only gained something substantial or pleasant or favorable when it sought change out of its own greed.
SAINT AND LOVERS AND GOOD MEN fuel not the fires of our machines. Laborers and supervisors do so on account of their own thirst for the waters of advancement.

All the philosopers and virtuosos and gurus and prodigies of all history may have had some particular motive in mind. However, it is man's willingess to break his own back only to comfort himself afterwards with his newly procured assets that makes advancement conceivable to any degree. GREED, a supposed fault in human character, inspires humanity, not curiosity or conviction or kindness or love. Society functions by its need to consume and digest., not cogitate and formulate to better the common man.

Originally posted by Tyler
And that benefits neither you, them or sciforums.

True. I do have a weak point in this, Tyler. It's been pointed out on more than one occasion. For me, doing this to people like Adam is hilarious, and as difficult to resist as a cigarette when trying to give them up.

On top of which I would safely say that 'they' do not "realise what they are doing".

*Shakes head* Oh Tyler... surely you don't generalise so freely?

Instead, they get frustrated and continue to think they are right to the point where you are simply considered an ass.

Also true. However, my fun isn't necessarily tempered by what others might think.

You win in your mind and they win in their mind. Nothing accomplished.

Yes, I'll quit bugging Adam. Point taken. I never actually intended to "win" anything, though. I'm well aware of the uselessness of doing it. It ceases to be enjoyable after a while anyway, he's not worthy enough an opponent.

Fair enough, sir.

As to those points:

- I don't say "violence is bad", or "rape is bad", or "dictatorships are bad", without reason. Many people do. Whatever the issue, I like to first examine its performance through history, think about the role it may have played in our evolution. I like to examine the basic human drives behind it. And I like to think about the possible benefit or detriment to our future. What do I base my decisions on, regarding whether something will be beneficial or detrimental? On basic principles such as "life wants to continue", and "survival is important"

- Whatever the matter under discussion, I like to view it equally with all such similar instances or events. For example, if someone mentions Iraq using poison gas against Kurds, I must keep in mind the USA use of nukes against Japan, Australia's murder of 4,000 Japanese POW's, the Rape of Nanking, and so on. A fair perspective is a must.

- Another primary consideration is hope. In all things, I hope we humans can become better than we have been, and better than we are. What is "better"? Again, I define this in terms of basic principles of life, and in terms of ridding the self of selfish drives based on fear and such.

In many cases, Adam and I disagree on the reasons, such as when he writes,

- Why rid the self of fear? Because fear is one of the main methods by which we allow the external world to control our thoughts and actions. We become better than we have been, and better than we are now, when our thoughts and actions are truly our own.

While considerations of the self are important, they have become too much the focus for too many people. And while I agree that becoming better than we have been through independence ... it is only when we forsake the self that we truly gain it. Otherwise, we are dependent on others to validate that self.

So where Adam has expressed a clean philosophy that is focused otherwise than my own preference, I would say that the reasons for ridding the self of fear derive from the fact that fear motivates all human conflict and thus imperils the species.

Adam's perspective represents an inherent state, and I just prefer to take it one step further.

As to documenting his errors--presenting a couple never hurts. And if you nail it dead-on and say it kindly, he might actually experience a change in perspective. But I do know, though, that presenting such evidence leads to nothing. In the meantime, present the evidence and rest easier knowing you have. People do, for some reason, follow these kinds of fights around here. But they do see when, for example, you present your evidence, someone ignores it, slams you, and then asks where your evidence is.

People do see.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

"*Shakes head* Oh Tyler... surely you don't generalise so freely?"

The point of my putting - they - in single quotes was to illustrate that I don't always (or, often) agree with Adam about those he singles out.

SAINT AND LOVERS AND GOOD MEN fuel not the fires of our machines.
Of course they do!
You have a very sick view of this world!
The only way anything gets built is by good will. If there is no good will, nobody would do anything and we would all die of hunger. You should thank God that these good people exist. God sends them here because he still loves us. So you should love God!

Tiassa, I'm inclined to agree with your comments, its a fair assessment..!Are you male or female
dominic:cool:

Originally posted by Justine
So you should love God!

HUH? WHAT? GOD!?!?
How'd that meddlesome twit get into this!
Always sticking his big, macrocosmic nose into my business!
Stupid astronomical, ubiquitous, benevolent, awesome, ominiscient deities always interfering in others' affairs.
I CAN'T STAND IT!
I should show him a thing or two!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

HUH? WHAT? GOD!?!?
How'd that meddlesome twit get into this!
Always sticking his macrocosmic nose into my business!
Stupid astronomical, ominiscient deities always interfering in others' affairs. I should show him a thing or two!

Redoubtable you are a true philosopher ...:cool:

Ah.. why don't we just stop this stupid argument and have some beer.
** Hands everyone a beer
Ah some weed helps too..
** Hands everyone some :m: :m: :m: :m:
Now let's just acknowledge that Adam won't change.. Accept him for what he is.. A spamming troll! :p I am sure he violated so many copyrights by copying news stories he could be jailed for life.:p :p :p

Now let's just acknowledge that Adam won't change.. Accept him for what he is.. A spamming troll! I am sure he violated so many copyrights by copying news stories he could be jailed for life.

"Are you getting a complex Adam///Jung....may help
:cool: :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
While considerations of the self are important, they have become too much the focus for too many people. And while I agree that becoming better than we have been through independence ... it is only when we forsake the self that we truly gain it. Otherwise, we are dependent on others to validate that self.

...I would say that the reasons for ridding the self of fear derive from the fact that fear motivates all human conflict and thus imperils the species.

The second quote is likely to be true, as far as it goes. Where you and I might differ is in the level of concern. While I love my own life, I don't have much love for any others save a select few. I've not seen enough value in the human species to be concerned over the possiblity of it's destruction.

I have not read Camus, Nor have I read any Nietszche beyond about two thirds of "Zarathusra". I have long been an agnostic, but I only describe myself as one because I cannot state with absolute certainty that a god does not exist. I do not, however, believe that one does.

I have a basic knowledge of what both Camus and Nietszche were about from discussions here and elsewhere, and they happen to reflect my own beliefs to a large extent. Whether or not anyone feels I have a "complete" understanding of either one has no relevence to me whatsoever, nor do I feel the need to read any more of them or other philosphers for any reason, other than out of some vague interest, or perhaps boredom. I had Kant inflicted on me frequently on a now-defunct philosphy board ages ago, and felt little of anything beyond a vague unease.

I have yet to be convinced by anyone that I should have any concern for my fellow man whatsoever, beyond having feelings for those who prove themselves worthy of them. Those few have been extremely rare, and precious to me.

If there is nothing beyond this life, then I also have no reason to be concerned for the survival of the species. Again.. no one has yet given me a valid reason to do so. I am fortunate enough to live in a time in which I can safely indulge my urge to fuck without needing to suffer any potential consequence of doing so. Thus my biological imperatives have become almost negligable in their effect on my self, except as a means of expression.

The reason I mention all this is that it might help you understand when I tell you that I have yet to find any logical reason for being anything other than what I am. I have deconstructed myself on more than one occasion, have felt nothing but contempt for myself when I find I am guilty of those things I despise, and yet over and over I return to something similar to what you see here. When I do hate myself, I merely have to self-analyse and usually I'll find it's because I'm surrendering to comfort and security, to a need I didn't realise I had, to apathy, or to feeling so much for another that I become less than what I was. All of these except the last I cannot tolerate in myself for very long. The last, I am still struggling with, and as yet have found no answer to the dichotomy this problem presents... to either deprive myself of someone I find valuable, or to surrender some form or amount of power to another in order not to lose them. In an ideal situation I would recieve from them an equal benefit, in them surrendering power to me in order not to lose me either, but not all situations are ideal.

As you can see, altruism in any form is not something I admire. Nor is sacrifice, unless I do this in order to gain something of more value to myself. As an example, I'm doing this right now, in submitting to your request for a more civil reply, because I do regard you as being an intelligent person worth some conversation even if I do not agree much with your point of view. Normally, I'd get more entertainment from playing with wind-up toys, as I have been doing in this thread until now.

quote:
So where Adam has expressed a clean philosophy that is focused otherwise than my own preference, I would say that the reasons for ridding the self of fear derive from the fact that fear motivates all human conflict and thus imperils the species.

This I totally agree with, whether it is the fear of not being liked or any other fear, creates disordered reasoning, in this case Adam and his philosophies.

"it is only when we forsake the self that we truly gain it"quoted Tiassa.
Once the alter -ego is conquered so will negativism and fear.
dominic

there are not enough goats on this forum

you nosey little thing, you!:D :p :D btw...i'm sure Tiassa can speak for himself, but, i'll tell you....he's a male. :)

:eek:


well....what gives?? why all the latent hostility towards Adam? can't a guy be entitiled to his own opinions and ideas/ideals? i am sure he can speak/defend himself, but...honestly, i just don't get this Adam-bashing thing. i guess maybe we should all examine our tolerance level.


p.s.....i'm not saying i agree with everything he believes in, but, i can still like him as a person without having to agree with every one of his beliefs, know what i mean?? ok. i'm done with my soapbox. *steps off*

Thanks Pump..
why all the latent hostility towards Adam?
I think "Adamism" is onother word for....."interesting individual"...

Adam "Do you think you are a sane , rational human being or is there more to you that we should know all about you.?
Intuitively, I feel you have a complex personality...

Confused our poor Adam is. It's probably all this brainwashing in the navy /army/whatever. Think it's probably caused by some repressed impulses to come out in form of news posts.

quote:
Think it's probably caused by some repressed impulses to come out in form of news posts.
"Adamism", should be compared to Bullshitism...that is what they do in the forces...bullshit!!!

HOP ON POP, HOP ON POP!

whats hop on pop