Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

@reasoning logic,

Hi RL!

Not to those who are anti-philosophical. Kind of like an atheist speaking out against that which they don't believe in. How can you be against something that doesn't exist in your eyes? Baffles me.

You're brilliant, by the way!
Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi RL!

Not to those who are anti-philosophical. Kind of like an atheist speaking out against that which they don't believe in. How can you be against something that doesn't exist in your eyes? Baffles me.

You're brilliant, by the way!
Mark...

I am against anyone going into my bank account and taking all of my money. But no one is doing it. Therefore I am against something that does not exist.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Hi Ken!

You are against the concept, not the person that doesn't exist.

How can you be against what is not?

Kind regards!
mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

You are against the concept, not the person that doesn't exist.

How can you be against what is not?

Kind regards!
mark...

I mentioned no person. I just said that I am against anyone stealing my money. And, it happens to be true (I hope) that no one is stealing my money. Therefore, since it is not the case that anyone is stealing my money, and I am against someone stealing my money, I am against what is not. QED. So, you are wrong.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Hi Ken!

The 'person' is the not 'person', I take it? And you are against this 'not person' for not commiting an act that would clearly be to your disliking.
Ok. I find this to be a strange thing to be in conflict with, but each to their own...

Are you also in conflict with cyborgs from venus eating your brains whilst you sleep? These don't exist either (I assume). Or whales with legs that beat people up while they sleep?

No, you are not! You just don't like the 'idea' of being robbed. And the 'idea' does exist. Ergo, you are not against something that is non-existent.

Have a lovely evening Ken!
mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Ken!

The 'person' is the not 'person', I take it? And you are against this 'not person' for not commiting an act that would clearly be to your disliking.
Ok. I find this to be a strange thing to be in conflict with, but each to their own...

Are you also in conflict with cyborgs from venus eating your brains whilst you sleep? These don't exist either (I assume). Or whales with legs that beat people up while they sleep?

No, you are not! You just don't like the 'idea' of being robbed. And the 'idea' does exist. Ergo, you are not against something that is non-existent.

Have a lovely evening Ken!
mark...

The problem here is that for him possibilities are nonexistent: he only recognizes actualities as existent. So even if he worries about some disturbing possibilities, he still believes himself to be worried about nothing.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I think I agree that philosophy is too esoteric and appeals only to those who consider themselves to be 'intellectuals' or academics. One of the problems with philosophy is that people do not accept philosophical propositions because they are logically defended, not matter how good of a job the philosopher does, they only accept certain views or ideas because they are emotionally receptive to those ideas. I could present a logical, reasonable argument for veganism but if someone does not feel empathy for non-human animals or their addiction to meat/animal products overrides that empathy, then I am wasting my time. Art is a better vehicle for moral commentary than philosophy because it makes a direct appeal to the heart, philosophy tries to reason with the intellect but the intellect goes where the heart tells it to. If you want to promote a certain world view, you're better off using stories since stories simulate what philosophy prepares you for : real life scenarios where philosophical ideas can actually be applied.

2 Replies

@Ubuntu,

Many of you make the mistake of providing one issue to challenge the whole topic of philosophy. Philosophy entails the intellectual process of arriving at the correct answer;

Quote:

it's the love and pursuit of truth.

It's an all encompassing pursuit of everything that can have a right or wrong answer, not just one issue.

0 Replies

@Ubuntu,

Not in opposition with your general idea, and off topic, I would like to hear your argument for Veganism, because I utterly disagree ! Or have you forgotten that we are omnivores ???

(I can take the argument for a preference for fruit and vegetables as a majority constituent in our food table, but not as an exclusive one...gatherers and collectors most of the time, but also hunters...you cannot fold genetics and step it aside !)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Not in opposition with your general idea, and off topic, I would like to hear your argument for Veganism, because I utterly disagree ! Or have you forgotten that we are omnivores ???

(I can take the argument for a preference for fruit and vegetables as a majority constituent in our food table, but not as an exclusive one...gatherers and collectors most of the time, but also hunters...you cannot fold genetics and step it aside !)

I eat very little of meat, and I can tell you that we really do not need all that meat protean given a good supply of vitamins and minerals and vegitable products.. I am 57, ran three miles yesterday, bicycled 5 more and worked out and pulled some pretty good weight... I dumped about 35 pounds in January and february and am wearing a pant size I have no worn for 15 years, and I feel good, no all doggy and depressed... So give it a try, and you may find you do okay...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Well...you are arguing that meat can be replaced, and I consent, although its not an easy task...but why should we ? Why should we deny our nature ?
Where is the "immorality" of eating meat, if not in how we do it, and how we bring it to the table ?

P.S - We agree on the animal abuse obscene situation, but that alone is not an argument for Veganism...of course you could counter with Logistics cost to invert the situation on how to feed 7 billion people...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Well...you are arguing that meat can be replaced, and I consent, although its not an easy task...but why should we ? Why should we deny our nature ?
Where is the "immorality" of eating meat, if not in how we do it, and how we bring it to the table ?

P.S - We agree on the animal abuse obscene situation, but that alone is not an argument for Veganism...of course you could counter with Logistics cost to invert the situation on how to feed 7 billion people...

We must always control of natures to be civilized, though that is hardly to our credit... Our meat as we receive it is hardly natural... When I dumped a lot of weight, even though I kept up on vitamins and mineral and ate healthy, my unit was like the unit of a child... For over a month I never got hard, and never got more than half hard for most of three months... When I quit burning all that fat, everything came back... Do you have any idea what they do to those animals to make them so fat??? It is not just food, but a huge dose of female hormones... Girls are having periods earlier than ever, and some of that can be put on lighting, but much of it is hormones... Do you really want that in your diet, something that will widen your hips and make you look like a fat lady in the express line...All those people care about who put the food in your markets is money... Meat in particular is loaded with toxins, and there was just a warning about weight loss on national televison... I'd like to testify...I don't want the fat, the hormones or the toxins or any of the cruelty associated with meat on my table... If I want to kill something and eat it I will start with deer, and give them a head start...

1 Reply

I understand your frustration. Yes, philosophers are lost in the clouds because every word of philosophy is treated as if it is an object to understand. Philosophy is not a 'thing' to understand. Philosophy doesn't exist, only philosophizing exists. Philosophizing is Be-ing the conversation, not having the conversation. When you 'have' a 'thing' called 'conversation', you keep your 'self' separate from the conversation which is a very safe thing to do and of no value to anyone. I suggest you read my latest post "A Message to Michael" at http://able2know.org/topic/163653-1

1 Reply

@Fido,

I do fully agree with you on this one...
The way food gets on our table its preposterous and obscene !

0 Replies

@Dasein,

Meaning upon meaning upon meaning means nothing...

The Whole is Something not Nothing, and although you may criticize the object you cannot avoid the Whole...

To say that there´s no Truth is already to state a Truth...

...meaning arises not in objects but in Truth and Truth is the Whole which cannot be said, but to be.

Objects are meaning but the Whole is what gives meaning even to meaning...
(feed up with Dasein in Philosophy...and my favourite Poet, Fernando Pessoa, and even my own poetry is coming from that angle so I have property to speak on it...a step to far I say ! )

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Meaning upon meaning upon meaning means nothing...

The Whole is Something not Nothing, and although you may criticize the object you cannot avoid the Whole...

To say that there´s no Truth is already to state a Truth...

...meaning arises not in objects but in Truth and Truth is the Whole which cannot be said, but to be.

Objects are meaning but the Whole is what gives meaning even to meaning...
(feed up with Dasein in Philosophy...and my favourite Poet, Fernando Pessoa, and even my own poetry is coming from that angle so I have property to speak on it...a step to far I say ! )

You talk as if 'meaning' is a thing. You speak of the 'whole', 'something', and 'nothing' as if they are concepts (things). Truth is an object for you. That's why "meaning means nothing" for you. As long as you identify your 'self' as a thing, you will be the victim of the predicament you've created and you'll spend the rest of your life trying to convice everybody that you're right. Let the good times roll!!!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Meaning upon meaning upon meaning means nothing...

The Whole is Something not Nothing, and although you may criticize the object you cannot avoid the Whole...

To say that there´s no Truth is already to state a Truth...

...meaning arises not in objects but in Truth and Truth is the Whole which cannot be said, but to be.

Objects are meaning but the Whole is what gives meaning even to meaning...
(feed up with Dasein in Philosophy...and my favourite Poet, Fernando Pessoa, and even my own poetry is coming from that angle so I have property to speak on it...a step to far I say ! )

Sory for the earlier post. I just figured out how to quote.

Objects are meaning but the Whole is what gives meaning even to meaning...
(feed up with Dasein in Philosophy...and my favourite Poet, Fernando Pessoa, and even my own poetry is coming from that angle so I have property to speak on it...a step to far I say ! )

0 Replies

@Dasein,

No meaning it is not a thing, its is between things, its a connector...
...or if you prefer, meaning is always that thing between things...
Meaning is the function who brings the "thing" from the undivided Whole...

The Be-ing-there still is...sheer, brute, compelling TO BE ! Wink

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Au contraire my little chick-a-dee. You just said that meaning is a connector. 'Meaning' and 'connector' are concepts for you. A concept is a "combination of characteristics" we use to describe Be-ing. 'Meaning' is not a thing that 'connects'. 'Meaning' is who you are and you make the 'connection'. There is no arbitrary 'thing' called 'meaning' that has any ability to make any 'connection'. It's all you. You supply 'meaning'. You make the 'connection'.
Just remember: "You can only fool the one who is fooling himself".

1 Reply

@Dasein,

I think what you should be saying is that meaning imply´s a relation between the property´s of A to fit the role X in relation to B...which is different once it imply´s a relational belonging to both sets...
...of course A can only perform a given number of roles according to its own nature possibility´s... nevertheless that alone means nothing...A performs for a goal, to reach B which is itself yet another object in the ultra-object of itself just like A...X which is the function/meaning between both, in the relation, establishes the object in A and the object in B which are both as I said ultra objects in themselves...its the function that who objectify´s what otherwise is diluted in the Whole...

Remember that 80´s film about a coca-cola bottle which fell off from an airplane in Africa and changed an entire culture in a tribe ? The damn bottle was everything for them but a bottle...function brings the object and is that who gives it meaning !

Hellasse mon cher ami, pas trop dificile, n´est pa ? que pense tu ? Wink

1 Reply

Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know