Philosphy, get a life! :-)

Oh!! great atempt at trying to make me feel like shiet!.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It won't work I've got something that you will never understand, and that is a bit of pride.

What I've produced unfortuanetly is not in words, but in my work, what I mean about living off the efforts of others. If you can't even comprehend the concept I don't see why I should waste my time with you.

Yea! you may be right that I live by borrowed Ideas.,As if you had any original idea of your own, as if you were some great philosopher to show a different way, of living a completely different philosophical system by you, were is it?

Epistomelogy will dictate that all knowlege is learnt from past knowledge. Even when you say fuck Plato, the Hell with Aristotle, YOU are following one or the other philosophical ideals, wether you realize it or not, that is the case, whether you can recongnize it or not, that is Your problem. Mysticism is much deeper than just religious theological thought, I won't waste my time trying to explain it to you.

Anyhow thank you for making my day, You've made me realize that I don't need to dish out any thing "new" that I want to share with you, only to try and redicule knew philosophical ideals, based on the epistemological past.

With this I say good day! to you. And I do hope you find yourself your philosophical Zero!.

But first learn a bit about epistemology, and whence comes my ideas. BTW this is not Ayn Rand's work nor Neo-Tech's.

link

NOTICE WERE IT SAYS:

nough said.
Good day.
G.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So now you're talking about manufacturing in a thread on philosophy. Way to go.

In my words. No original thoughts, you say? All thought before, you say? Well, maybe so, but not thought in my head by my brain. And, who said anything about being a great philosopher? I'm just me. Doing what I have to do. I don't have a choice. It seems that you do. So, shoo.

And you just don't fucking get it. What about Confucious? What about all who came before Plato and Aristotle who they got their ideas from? I realize that their words are valuable but one mustn't place that value too high. As it seems that you do.

Two schools of thought is ludicrous. Absolutely and positively insane. You didn't answer any of my points. Why not? Couldn't find it in a book in the right order?

New? How do you do that when you're just quoting others.

"I said Good Day, Sir!" Can't even brush me off in your own words? *smirk*

Thanks. I'll add it to my list of things I'll get to one of these days. But, I'd much rather hear what you think. But, it seems you have no inherent faith in the validity of your own thoughts.

I understand the value of the thoughts of others. I have said it time and time again. It's just that it seems you place far too high a value on them. With such a high value on the thoughts of others, there is absolutely no reason to think for yourself. It's all been thought before so why bother?


Tell Wonka I said hi.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

God:

*^*&^)*

I've read the whole thing, you fucking..........ah.
Relax. Release.

I've read the whole thing and found this in it:

There's a name up there in bold.
It says Kant.

Now do you a favor and replace Kant with "Neo Tech".

What is left over is your own masters talking about you.

Never have I said our philosophers were useless, if anything they are goldmines that have been closed and filled with the soot of modern ignorance.
I relish in Nietzsche- he helped me find the size of my mind and reconciled me to a joyful hate and cruelty I was ashamed of once and cannot help having.
I love Durant in that he's shown me the value of flexibility.
I love Spengler in that he's shown me in words my disillusionment with the Western world and the fatalism of any culture.
Bashing these men is not what I am doing and you know it.

I'm only hatefully amused at your childish attempts to call someone else ignorant when all I hear is a little boy squealing behind a bulletin board that's become his 'philosophy'.
Ignorance.

Take this up with Invert.

You can lie to you, but don't lie to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Godless:

The link doesn't work. It's just a http://

A little test perhaps.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Throw the link up, I'll check it out.

I don't deny the validity of what you've been taught. What I deny is the simplicity with which it attempts to paint the world. It attempts to steal my mind. I understand that there are those who went before and that my existence depends on them. However, I do take exception to limiting it to Plato and Aristotle as the holy fathers. Why them? Why not ug, the caveman philosopher? Or Oog, Caveman mystic?

Even in Plato's time, all thoughts had been thought before. They just weren't written down. It is in the writing and handing down of information that the greeks became famous. If there language had descended into lost knowledge the way the other languages of the past did then Plato and Aristotle would mean nothing. It's just chance and circumstance that make them so great.

And, it says nothing about the eastern philosophers who had absolutely nothing to do with the Greeks.

Cmon man, can't you see my point? I'm not denying all knowledge from the past, just the blind gobbling of it by those who would rather not think for themselves. Who don't think for themselves. It's a crutch.

As has been said by Rosa, it takes a strong will to negate the crushing effects of education. To throw off the shackles of dogma.

To turn Plato on his head and shake the change from Aristotle's pockets.

Understand?

 

Oh suffer.

Godless: Hello Gendanken. You know nothing about me, Aristotle says that you're only a plucked chicken with a soul.
Gendanken: Speak English.
Godless: Oh shut up, Gendanken. Its true. Xenophones also tells me you only see what you want to see. I'm neither dumb, lazy nor ignorant but only a reflection of what you choose to see when you look on me.
Gendanken: Speak English.
Godless: You know, its funny you should speak about English. Did you know there are many Greek words in the English tounge?

HA!
Masturbators.

 

It has been said before, I quoted Hegel on this, that none of us fell from the Moon -- and that thus none of us is so extraordinarily extraspecial to indeed be a kind of his own, and produce utterly new ideas.

Yet to say that one always "follows Aristotle/Plato/some already existing thinking system" is a forced reduction and sheer reversed elitism, in advance denying ourselves any credits of ingenuity.

Nobody fell from the Moon: not Plato, not Aristotle, not Einstein, not Kant -- nobody.
How come that they were such great thinkers?

When younger, Einstein might just as well have said, "Oh, I am actually following Aristotle and Kant [or whomever], I won't come up with anything new, I must just as well curl up in the corner and wait for the end."
Judging by what he became, it must be that he wasn't thinking that way.


What great men have in common is respect for other great men.
And this respect means that they appreciate those great men -- and don't feel like toads in comparison to them.
Toads can not respect.

 

There's a passage in "Trainspotting" that immediately came to my mind (translating back into English, sorry):

Begbie's anger at Sickboy isn't so much heightened by jealousy, but by the grudge because he left; he misses someone to sit next to him. He is high on speed. His brain is jumping from one revelation to another revelation and he feels that his thoughts are just simply too good to not share them with others. He needs to speak to somebody.

The egotistic apathy of a philosophical wannabe is no different.

 

I would say that at least they are original thoughts. If he were merely regurgitating old philosophy handbooks then it would be vile, but if he is truly allowing his mind to run then there is no fault in him.

However, I have been in that exact circumstance (drug-induced running of the mouth) and the funny thing is that nobody listens to anybody, not even themselves. The words run and ramble and who knows maybe even some great thoughts get thunk, but at the end of the day nobody heard them, not even the speaker.

Empty chatter.

 

A mistake was made when I tried the link. here again a link on the introduction of epistemology; another try.

My philosophy is simplistic. Yes, that's the best way to live, I don't clutter my mind with useless crap. I try not too.

To be rediculed, cut down, gendanks atempt to try humiliate me, and then you will think I will give up, my simplistic manner which I deal with. lol.

I tell you this. I'm extremely happy, I produce not in manufacturing. But only that I'm not maintained by welfare, handouts, or extorting funds from anyone. My job I was a manager for a wharehouse, I quit, and I'm moving soon to Las Vegas. So what does it matter. U still don't get it. There are only two types of people in the world, those who produce and those who live off the efforts of others.

Yea I learnt that from lit of neo-tech, yea I also learnt that from Ayn Rand, yea I learnt that from my own life experience, and the awarness that I've been able to learn from objectivist philosophers, including Hume, Bertrand Russel, a bit of Nietzsche, Nathaniel Branden, and others. Course the masters Sophists Plato, Aristotle, amongs others. I never attended college, I'm a high school drop out. I find that the weak atempts to compare me as a child, makes Gen. Look like the child, and ignorant. Why becuase inavertedly he called me a racist, without even knowing my own race. What an idiot.

So I ask myself; Why continue? why keep this argument when I'm only going to be rediculed, put down, and even to the point of calling me some whining child. F*ck it. I give up is the attitude, I'm happy why the hell should I give a flying crap about you?, or anyone else in these here boards, were nothing ever gets accomplished, but only discorse and arguments with little validity. What a waste of time. I do it simply for the entertainment. Really.

But I have a helpfull nature, I think I may not lead the whole lot of you, but some will look at these words, those sites and perhaps help themselves. No Neo-Tech does not own my mind, Neither Ayn Rand, but the lessons learnt were very valuable to me, and the course of my life, whithout them I would still be a drug addict, and a perhaps dead by now. This being my reason I always refer them to others. Hey if you don't like them, if you don't like to read it, I'm not forcing anyone here to read shiet. So be it. Do you think I write all this just for your benefit? do you think you are the only ones that read these boards? Many people read these board without ever posting a thing, becuase of the rudness treatment they see, or perhaps fear, who knows but I know they read.

Godless.

 

Ok. It works this time. However, I'm clueless as to what you're trying to say with this link. What does it have to do with Plato and Aristotle? How does it back up your statements that Plato is the father of mysticisms and Aristotle is the father of objectivism? The little bit you quoted certainly says something that could be interpreted as thus, however if you take the full paragraph:

Let us start with the Greek philosophers. In Plato's view knowledge is merely an awareness of absolute, universal Ideas or Forms, existing independent of any subject trying to apprehend to them. Though Aristotle puts more emphasis on logical and empirical methods for gathering knowledge, he still accepts the view that such knowledge is an apprehension of necessary and universal principles. Following the Renaissance, two main epistemological positions dominated philosophy: empiricism, which sees knowledge as the product of sensory perception, and rationalism which sees it as the product of rational reflection.​

So, I'm confused. Now it seems that instead of Plato and Aristotle being the fathers of the dual modes, it came about later. After or during the Renaissance. So, if Aristotle believed in absolute universal values, is he a mystic? What is a mystic? Please define your modes of thought. You've said that my view of what mystic is is far short of the reality but you don't clarify. And, please, in your own words. Do it with links if you have to, but I'm communicating with you not these others. Give me your thoughts and interpretations.

The rest of the link seems to diverge quite fiercely. Even going into Quantum Mechanics and such. It seems to be saying to me that the schools of thought nowadays are as different from Plato's thoughts as you can get.

I'm a simple person too. But there's a difference between being simple and being black and white. When ever I hear the words "There are two..." I get a little leery. There are never two. There aren't even two sides to a coin. There's always more than two and any who try to cut it down so far is doing the subject (whatever it may be) a grave disservice. Two implies polarity. Duality. + and -. Can't you see how this is disgustingly wrong? There is nothing in this world that runs on such simple premises. Expect the binary language. And, even computers have more disparity than on and off. There's a threshold that limits the voltage to one or the other. (Not entirely sure of the working of circuits. Gendanken is taking courses in such, I'd love her input. Even if it is only marginally connected to the topic.)

You and many other seem to like the number two. It's nice and easy. Us and them. Black and white. Hot and cold. Up and down. Left and right. However, to me it's foolish and it only inspires foolish behavior. I'm more partial to three but even three is limiting. Seven was a magic number of old. As was twelve. Anything but two. Two is highlighting the extremes. It pushes the subject to the extremes. And in so doing, it bends the results.

Think lines and circles. A line is and example of two. Possibly three. One end and the other end. With three being in the middle. Three being lukewarm in this case and one knows how people feel about lukewarm. But, life is more complicated than a straight line. Look at a circle or a sphere. Are any two points on that sphere viewed as the top or bottom? As the the two extremes of the choices? One can label the pole anyway they want, but the truth is that the sphere is limitless in this regard. There is no lukewarm as all points are equally likely to be an extreme.

Now, perhaps 360 degrees if a circle is too much. Too much to work with and make a working theory from. Our minds only hold so many concepts in comparison at one time. But, anything is better than two. Two should be removed from the language when speaking of such things. Two is a bad, bad number. It should be spanked severely and locked in a cold dark room. Bad two. Bad.

So, you were talking about Gendy then. I thought you were referring to me. I thought you thought I was being too hard on you. I didn't call you names, but I feel I tore at you. Rather brutally. Maybe that's just me. Remember. There's more than two viewpoints here.

As to you giving up your simplistic viewpoints. It would be nice. Or rather not to give them up entirely but realize that it is only a means of looking at a thing. It is not the thing itself and it is not entirely correct. In fact, it is grievously wrong in many respects. One must realize that there is no true path. No true mode of perception. You say that there are two schools of thought and all thought is derived from two dead men. I say fie on that. Perhaps the greeks had much to do with out way of thinking but our thoughts are our own. We can acknowledge the past but the past is over. Now is important. The thoughts of now are real.

Your way of looking at philosophy is sure to inspire an ennui. A hopeless sense of why bother. It's all been said and done so it's pointless.

This has been said so many times in this thread that I wonder why I bother?

And you still don't get it. There are far more than that. And there are more ways than one to produce. Now, you've taken this meaning into producing as in making things. I'm in construction myself. I produce physical things with my hands. I take pride in this. There are also those who produce as in laborers, farmers, manufacturers, etc... People that produce physical things. Things that other people use. Now, there are people who perform services. Your warehouse job (I've done that work as well) is technically a service job. You don't produce anything, you move stuff around. But, you can be said to be a productive member of society because you earn your pay. Most of the people in the world today are in the service industry, I think. Waiters, taxi drivers, truck drivers, etc... They make nothing. They produce only service. Now, what about artists? Artists produce art. But, many artists are not appreciated until they're dead. While alive they are dreadfully poor and dependent on handouts and yet they've given us the most wonderful and beautiful art. For practically no reward in many cases. They produce. But are not valued. Where do they fit? What if their art isn't "discovered" for several hundred years after their death? Scientists produce science. Much of this is practically useless for the average person. Many of them are underpaid and underappreciated. Producers? Now, we begin to come to the point of this thread. Philosophers. Most of them (as has been said) obtain no physical value from their craft. They aren't paid a penny for their work. They aren't appreciated in the slightest. They are often poor, unesteemed loners. Nobody likes a ponderer. They may have a job where they produce in one method or another, but in the field of philosopy. In the field of their thoughts they produce only reams of paper with words on them. Words that may very well go unread by a single other human being their entire lives. Maybe forever. Now, are they producers?

Be careful how you answer. Remember. You were arguing for philosophy. It now seems that you may be arguing the opposite.

Now, tell me there are only two types of people in the world. Tell me how simple it is to label everyone in the world with two simple labels. Tell me. And if you do then I'm done with you. Nothing will ever break through your "simplicity". And the world will be a colorless place for you all the days of your life. But, hey, at least you're not one of 'them', right?

If you learned from them then why can't you speak what you've learned? And what have you done with what you learned? Have you changed it? Combined it? Moved it around? Shaken it to see what falls out? Learning isn't about memorization. Any monkey can do that. Gestalt. Find the pattern or get off the bus. Make the pattern or turn on the tv and shutup.

Racist? What the hell? Is this because you're concentrating on greek and forgetting the rest of the world? If so, you're pushing it, bud. And, by the way, Gendy is a she. She's got boobies and a snapper.

Yes. Why continues? You ask this in regards to participating in this thread, but I take it further. Why continue with philosophy at all if you're not doing anything with it? What's the point of learning all this just to keep on your shelf so that one can quote the 'masters' from time to time?

I tell you why I do it? You know the answer. You should if you've been keeping up. I do it and will continue to do it because I have no choice. My mind forces me down these twisted alleys of thought. I MUST do this. I must think and ponder and learn and mix and match and philosophize and shake and rattle and loosen and tighten. I must find the patterns within the patterns. I have no choice. But, it seems you do.

Well, if that's your attitude then don't let the door hit you on the way out. Lots of better places for entertainment than here. I come here for this discourse that you seem to ridicule. I come here to learn and to share. You say you don't work in an intellectual environment, so your situation must be similar. In the real world, I have no one with whom to discuss these types of things. In here I do. It's true that very few discussions solve anything, but they certainly sharpen things within my mind. And one finds others with whom one might produce fruitful conversations (ally and enemy).

But, if it's entertainment you want, there's a pokemon forum just up the internet backbone. Why don't you head over there and see what fun there is to be had?

Write what? This last post of yours barely deals with anything relevant to the conversation. The earlier posts were links and simplifications. By all means, write your piece. Tell us about why philosophy is good or bad. Convince us that there are only two types of people in the world. Convince us that there are only two schools of thought in the world. Convince us that all thought descends from two dead men. By all means, do so. In your own words.

 

That's just the thing with the egotistic apathy of a philosophical wannabe: nobody listens to anybody, not even themselves. Even if the thoughts are original -- what does it matter if even the speaker is so reckless (or so disabled) that he can't hear them? It's disrespectful, to oneself.

 

I can't convince anyone of anything, you either choose to see it your way, or finally realize it on your own.

To borrow from some Asian philosphy the Ying&Yang, there are always two ways to look at things, what benefits humanity, what hinders progress, what elevates us, what promises a profitable future, what will diminish it.

All those things follow the path of how you as an idividual choose to live, how you as an idividual use philosophy, and how the philosphical norm of our society may be elevating us, or hindering a prosperous future. What I've been able to do is intergrate all the information to my own philosophy that I pretty much live by.

I appreciate, that you want to learn. And I'm sorry that I'm lousy teaher. I've not tought anything, and perhaps even confused you even more.

I don't see the world as just black and white, I have a pretty good aprehencion of how and why things are the way they are, and what I must do in order to survive troubling times, i.e the choice of leaving my job, (was getting nowere) and pursuing a different carreer in Las Vegas, I want to cook in a Casino Restaurant. The choice comes from having a very old mom, that I want to make happy, I think she can have her last years happy there, since there's many things to keep us entertained.

True, however the philosophers that came after them used one form Platonistic, or Aristotelian.

The Philosophers such as Confussious, or of Eastern origins, I don't know many of them, however We don't take the models as part of our society today, if you would just read, Plato the Republic, you will find many similiarities of how our own society is, and how he modeled them in those words of his, Also you will find in our society many models of how Aristotelian philosophy is used in the west. (there's a miniscule of people) explaining that *reality is nothing but an illusion*, Confusious.

I've got a good example of mysticism and it's deeper meaning in this discussion with Xev. here

Our thoughts are not completely coherent, however you might just get an idea what I mean.

Godless.

 

I know I've failed to answer many of your questions, however the only thing I can do, since I'm lousy at words, is refer you back to that long ass post of mine. Of neo-tech. or their website. You might try and look at some objectivism sites as well.

And again my apolegies for being a lousy writer.

G.

 

You know what Invert!?, you've inspired me to further understand and re-read, neo-tech lit, and other sites of were I draw my own ideas, so I will start on another thread, called epistemology, to try and show why philosphy follows mainly just two points of view of existence that of Plato and the other of Aristotle.

G.

PS. given that I will be leaving in 3 days for Las Vegas I will hardly have the time to correspond much on this.

 

Godless,

You're right and you're wrong. I'm certainly not infallible. And I don't hold myself to any such infallible standard. You could convince me. But, it would be hard going to convince of the stark nature of thought that you see. I can see the truth in it, but see it as a limited truth. Very limited and limiting. Depressing and despair-invoking. A "why bother" road.

And, convincing me should not be your ultimate goal. As you've said, I'm not the only person to read this thread. There are others out there who read and do not post. Perhaps you could get to them. Or whoever.

But, the most important person in this conversation should be yourself. Through conversing with others, through squabbling over this and that, you should be sharpening your own thoughts. Clarifying concepts and ideals within your own philosophy. The book that you will write. Are writing. The story of your life and your mind. This is the importance of such useless conversations. Remember, we do seek to help others at times, but in the end all things are selfish. We help ourselves more than others in these debates. Even if we "lose" a debate it should still strengthen something within us. And if it doesn't then we're doing something wrong.

Yes, Yin and Yang. But, Yin and Yang are two different ideals than any we've discussed so far.

You're right, there are always two ways to divide the world. It is a perception that we are often wont to do. A division. Light and dark. Heaven and Hell. The heavens and the earth. The land and the waters. But, I hate these divisions. They are limited and limiting. Look at the division that chrisitianity and any other single god religion instills on the world. It makes of the world an "us vs. them", a "good vs. evil".
It instills extremism and fanaticism.
It certainly has its uses, but one must always keep in mind the limitation that are espoused by such a stark and brutal world view.
Use it sparingly and with eyes open.
That's what I'm saying.

Like I said, if one must use such a limiting viewpoint, why not add a third view? One can always make it three divisions and keep it simple. In so doing, one might prevent much extremism. One might prevent a locking of viewpoints which is brought about by extremism.

Surely you can see the elitism inherent in a strictly black and white viewpoint. Which side is the person imposing this viewpoint going to fall on? I bet you he would rarely fall on the "bad" side. What do you think?

Perhaps you have confused me a bit on certain issues. But, the truth is it's not your job to clarify my mind. That's my job. And I assure you that while I see certain areas I wish to look into in the field of classic philosophy, this discussion has clarified many other thoughts within my mind.

It's funny. I've noticed a tendency for every discussion such as this to connect with every other discussion I've had. It's like one long discussion that never ends.

I mention this because of several concepts I've brought into this conversation and clarified directly from various viewpoints brought up.

You know something that I found interesting on your epistomology site? They mention a theory of knowledge similar to the limit in calculus. This is a concept I formed several months ago and am in love with. Closer and closer but never reaching. That is the beauty of knowledge. I imagine it promotes certain fallacious images though. For, there are times when one's views on the truth he is reaching for shifts radically. So, perhaps a sin wave rather than a parabola... Anyway, drifting off-topic again...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, it seems that you would rather use your conception of philosophy you've acquired as merely a personal tool to make your life more liveable. And to help loved ones in their lives. Certainly a useful way to use it. And it explains your methodology. You don't have the urge to create through philosophy. To make concrete your own thoughts. There is no shame in such a thing, but what category does this place you in with the producers and the consumers?

Remember, there are more than one areas of production and consumption. See the limits of such a stark viewpoint? I applaud your inspiration to create. I hope you find your path.

Here's a thought on two. Gods and men. Between gods and men there is no seperation. One blends softly into the other. (From Frank Herbert) This should show the error of duality. Perhaps. I'm sure there are many other ways of expressing a similar concept. Rosa has a nice little holistic learning metaphor. Maybe she'd share. I wonder if she's refined the concept any more since the last we've spoken of it?

Not really, they used labels. Plato and Aristotle became useful archetypes. And, I still say that one must bear in mind the limits of duality. (If this is even duality. I'm hazy on the formal concept of duality.)

You and your damnable links!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll look into it and reply on it later.

That's the purpose of these discussions. It's like sharpening an axe. An axe used to cut away the conceptions of the old world. That's the difference between you and me. You'd use your conceptions to strengthen the conceptions of the past. I'd cut them away and make a clean start.
Not throw them away, no. Rather, cut away the preconceptions and allow the world to look upon them with new eyes.
This is key.
New eyes.
There may be nothing new under the sun, but there are always new places to stand upon which to wonder.

No apologies necessary. I'm not much of a writer either. But, I'm getting better. I seem to be able to write, but it's staying focused that eludes. This is the area that I'm working on in my skills at the moment. I hope I succeed.

I've commented on this above in another section, but couldn't let this go unquoted. I'm glad that I've helped. I hope you find the path to a rethinking, a reformulation, a shifting of gestalt.

Remember, closer and closer but never there. And always look for the place you can stand to look with new eyes. It takes new eyes to reshape old conceptions.

The greeks lived in the apparent youth of the historical world. They created with the passion of the young. The world is old and tired. It has been redefined time and time again. New rebirths. It is time for another.

New eyes. That's what we need.

Rosa,

Point taken. There are those who speak just to hear themselves speak. And some of these don't even hear themselves. It is essential and tricky to label such speakers though. I suppose it is only truly possible if you ask someone to elaborate on something they spoke of previously. If they have no remembrance of such a thing then you can pass them as reckless non-thinkers.

However, some have lost the capacity to remember... Remember Korsakov's syndrome? Imagine a great thinker who was unable to remember his own thoughts. I wonder what his thoughts would be like? Would they repeat endlessly? Or would there be endless variation depending on immediate environmental variables? Almost makes me want to find a philosopher and take a scalpel to their mammilary bodies. Although, I bet you couldn't reach them through conventional surgery. I believe they're buried in the bottom of the brain. Near the olfactory bulbs. I bet you could get at them through the nasal passages though, it might take a few tries...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Would this be a forbidden experiment, I wonder? Or would that just apply to the act of raising a child away from all social influence? Bah. It's only a label anyway. Can mean anything I want, can't it?


Gendanken,

Almost missed the significance of this statement:

I was speaking against ambiguity in philosophical writings. It seems that you seem to think that ambiguity is ok? Or is it that the bible is only partially ambiguous? It can be used to mean many things, but only within a certain scope?

Please elaborate on this.

I would speak against the bible, myself. The only way the christians are able to reconcile themselves with the bible is by blatantly ignoring certain passages in favor of others. Ignoring both contradictions and needless cruelties. Ignoring the fact that above all it is a book of the hebrews. A bonding of a tribe. And not a tribe that I belong to.

Basically, one could make the bible mean anything. Or practically anything.

Damn it. I'm running in circles here. Hmm.

I've spoken against the ambiguous. Against the "artist" who merely splashes paint without conscious intent of instilling meaning in the art. The "artist" who counts on his "erudite" audience to apply their own meaning to his meaningless. This type of artist is no artist in my mind. But what of the art? Is it art? Would it be something like found art? I should probably post this particular example in the what is art thread. In fact, I think I will.

But, regardless, this is also relevant here, because it applies to the "philosopher" who merely jumbles together a series of words in the most ambiguous manner possible in order for his readers or listeners to apply their own meaning. Is he a philosopher? I wouldn't think so. But, what of the words once meaning is applied? Is it philosophy? Found philosophy?

 

Which you have done, just right now, by saying things like "And not a tribe that I belong to."


"When *I* use a word," Invert Nexus said in rather a scornful tone, "it means exactly what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Gendy, "whether you *can* make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Invert Nexus, "which is to be master -- that's all."
"Hah," chirped Rosie, bit into a delightful red apple, and wandered off with Isaac.

Oh yes. Have them smell some bread.

 

Why, Rosie... Have you just answered why a raven is like a writing desk? Wrong thread you know.

However, I don't understand exactly what you mean with "Which you have done, just right now, by saying things like "And not a tribe that I belong to."

You're saying that I applied my own interpretation to the bible and thus made it mean what I wanted? Perhaps so. By actually reading and using the words in the bible. YHWH was a god of the Hebrews. There are multiple passages that refer to this fact. And even Jesus said on occasion not to teach his faith to the Gentiles.

The only way to extend the original faith (most of which laws are blatantly ignored) as well as the later teachings of the New Testament to the whole of humanity, huge portions of the whole must be completely ignored or misread.

As to whether I can make a word mean anything. Are you saying the bible is unambiguous? Are you saying that it is clear and direct in its message? Are you saying that every word in the bible contributes to the whole which we call Christianity?

These questions really stretch the topic, but I feel are somewhat on topic in regards to ambiguity in philosophical texts.

Unfortunately, a loss of their sense of smell would likely be a consequence of the procedure. You bring up a good point. I wonder how that would alter the results. After all, smell is a prime environmental factor in shaping the direction the brain might flow.

Damnit! Why do the mammilary bodies have to be hidden away so fiercely?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You realize, I have no authority or even true will to perform such a thing. I'm just blowing smoke out of my ass. It would be interesting though. Maybe someday when computer modeling is many times better such things will be possible in simulation. Even the forbidden experiment. However, this raises the spectre of the ghost in the machine. And is it right for a computer simulation that approaches the appearance of human consciousness (and thus maybe even true consciousness itself) to be tormented in such ways?

Interesting. And useless at the moment.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I did not realize this is the riddle in question. But me, being multilingual, have certain hindrances, as well as short-cuts when it comes to language(s). That is, in my native language, the word for "flat, straight" is -- gues what?! -- raven. And a writing desk is flat ...

As to why a raven (that bird, mind you) is like a writing desk: well, *any* two terms can be brought together in a metaphor, you just have to find a criteria or a certain context. Hah, I'll use Poe's raven as a reference: they both sit there, calling you to your duty.

Yes.

The "Israelites" can be read as a type, not specifically as that certain nation.

Not *is*, *was*. Until the bishops and other church leaders and users -- and they were many, with very worldly interests -- obscured its meaning. Nowadays, we cannot read those words without thinking of the Inquisition, the forceful Christianization and all that. What was done *in the name of God* added to, and often corrupted the way we understand the God of the Bible.

It is rather that the whole which we call "Christianity" contributes to the way we understand each word of the Bible.

Imagine: How would you view Nietzsche's work, if you had never heard his name before, in no connection whatsoever? What if he was just a name on a book that you took one day, and read? Would you still admire it? Would you live by it?

Actually, the more you know about philosophy, the less ambiguous certain passages are -- as, due to your knowledge, you can make valid inferences that don't collide with the rest of the text.

Translated: 'Have them work for their bread.'

 

i tried to make this forum better but you people let it fall behind even to philosophyforums.com which is no more than a board to quote books
now is phiocrazy free to express himself i ask you,cause you dont get
philosophy unless you give the philosopher the freedom to speak freely and
give you a taste of your own, i hope you wont be disappointed,as an example
i quote:
"To be, or Not to be"(shakespear)

Philosopher Philocrazy

 

Go. Away.