Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

@Dasein,

Okay. I'll try to remember that games-playing the next time.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

What you say won't always match what someone else is thinking.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

No, its not!

You're supposed to say "Yes, it is!

Then I say "No, its not!, ad infinitum. - LOL

Yes we can! No we can't! Yes we can! (You are quite tuned with the political moment in the US.)

Anyway, giving up on perfection by believing one is already perfect is by no means "disentangling" oneself from the concept of perfection: it is rather giving up on self-critique, as also -- worse -- taking one's "way of being" as if it were the measure of perfection itself.

0 Replies

@NAACP,

NAACP wrote:

What you say won't always match what someone else is thinking.

Neither what one says always matches what one thinks, nor what one said before.

1 Reply

@guigus,

What one says ALWAYS matches what that one has thought at one point/what one is currently thinking/be-ing(Yes Dasein I stole that) We are constantly Be-ing(Again, stolen)

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
To some, philosophy is too esoteric to be useful. To others, it’s the basis of a good drinking party.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/lost-in-the-clouds/?hp

Two interesting opinions at the link above. My own opinion is that almost all modern Philosophy is useless, because it does not address the human condition. It is kinda like the sport of rhythmic gymnastics, to some interesting to watch for a few minutes every four years at the Olympics, otherwise it never has cause to cross our minds. The problem is not hopeless, but to solve it we need a new vision of what Philosophy is, and a whole boat load of new people to do it.

Opinions?

I do not believe that you need a new vision of what Philosophy is, but simply understand a very old one. Plato defined the craft of a philosopher. He actually pioneered psycho-linguistics.
One of the problems people do not realize is that when they read someone, they often come to believe that what they read is what was intended, what was being exhibited.
The principles Plato had exhibited should have become our foundation for langauge, perhaps someday they will. That is what I work on.

In fact, the grammatical principles I set through in my Language and Experience to demonstrate the invalidity of not only non-Euclidean Geometry, but Einstein's theories as well are compiled from the works of Plato. Aristotle did not comprehend them.

For a very long time, what has been called Philosophy use to be called Sophistry.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

You do not need a new view of philosophy or a view of an old one, the answer is simple. You need new philosophers that understand who they are, philosophizing. If Dasein were here he could fully explain it. We are not defineable, WE ARE definers. Each and every one of us.

2 Replies

@NAACP,

NAACP wrote:

You do not need a new view of philosophy or a view of an old one, the answer is simple. You need new philosophers that understand who they are, philosophizing. If Dasein were here he could fully explain it. We are not defineable, WE ARE definers. Each and every one of us.

A definition is no more than the preservation of a social convention which equates the name of a thing with the names of that things forms and the names of the various material differences in those forms. (Aristotle, restated)

Show me who you know who even knows what a definition is.
See my Language and Experience.

How many primitive categories of names are there? Which can be defined and which cannot? Why?

2 Replies

@NoOne phil,

Ok well it looks to me like you kinda went off on something there and missed my point completely, "Philosophy" in and of itself is useless. We need new philosophers who understand who they truly are.

1 Reply

@NAACP,

NAACP wrote:

Ok well it looks to me like you kinda went off on something there and missed my point completely, "Philosophy" in and of itself is useless. We need new philosophers who understand who they truly are.

You missed several of my my points and thus what you said itself is useless.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

Ahhhh I see what you're doing, you're a tricky one!!!!!

1 Reply

@NAACP,

NAACP wrote:

What one says ALWAYS matches what that one has thought at one point/what one is currently thinking/be-ing(Yes Dasein I stole that) We are constantly Be-ing(Again, stolen)

Do you believe all advertisement you see? Have no one ever lied to you? What a privileged person you are...

1 Reply

@NAACP,

NAACP wrote:

You do not need a new view of philosophy or a view of an old one, the answer is simple. You need new philosophers that understand who they are, philosophizing. If Dasein were here he could fully explain it. We are not defineable, WE ARE definers. Each and every one of us.

Dasein (be-there) has become something else (be-somewhere-else) -- how did you like my "definer power"?

1 Reply

@guigus,

Lies are nothing more than that Be-ing also simultaneously lying to themselves, so they still thought it......but their thoughts were of deception.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Didn't really understand this post.........by Dasein I mean the dude that posts on here who I find to be correct in 99.9% of his statements........and you do have definer power by Be-ing the only you there ever was or ever will be in the universe, and I love it. It's special in and of itself.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

NoOne phil wrote:

NAACP wrote:

You do not need a new view of philosophy or a view of an old one, the answer is simple. You need new philosophers that understand who they are, philosophizing. If Dasein were here he could fully explain it. We are not defineable, WE ARE definers. Each and every one of us.

A definition is no more than the preservation of a social convention which equates the name of a thing with the names of that things forms and the names of the various material differences in those forms. (Aristotle, restated)

Show me who you know who even knows what a definition is.
See my Language and Experience.

How many primitive categories of names are there? Which can be defined and which cannot? Why?

And much more:

Who created the conventions that definitions preserve?
Do they regret their creation?
Are such conventions also definitions?
Is the noble activity of creating conventions also an act of definition?

To be continued...

1 Reply

@NAACP,

NAACP wrote:

Lies are nothing more than that Be-ing also simultaneously lying to themselves, so they still thought it......but their thoughts were of deception.

If lies were nothing more than being, then they couldn't be also lies... Or being is the same as lying?

Or perhaps lying is just being but also lying, and you are just right but also wrong...

1 Reply

@guigus,

Be-ing CAN be the same as lying if it suits the Be-ings purposes in a certain situation....

1 Reply

@guigus,

You're stuck.

Be-ing always continues....

0 Replies

@NAACP,

NAACP wrote:

Didn't really understand this post.........by Dasein I mean the dude that posts on here who I find to be correct in 99.9% of his statements........and you do have definer power by Be-ing the only you there ever was or ever will be in the universe, and I love it. It's special in and of itself.

Dasein means "being-there": it is Heidegger's terminology -- I just made a joke with the expression.

As for my "definer power," it depressed me a little in the last election, since I didn't like any of the candidates. But no problem, since I am unique, right? Sorry, but it doesn't seem to compensate... Besides, this mosquito that is annoying me right now is also unique... So am I as relevant as a mosquito? Many adversaries of mine in this forum would certainly love that...

1 Reply

Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know