34
   

Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 02:50 pm
@Dasein,
1 - Undefinability of Being is already an assessment which may or may not have true value and that instantiates a perspective from someone...
2 - The object in that perspective is its undoing...curious is n´t it ?
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 09:03 pm
@NAACP,
NAACP wrote:

You just repeated the action in which I have condemned in all of my statements, stop turning everything into a concept and let yourself be. There are no "answers" to find outside of yourself I assure you. We just are.......we just are.


Then why don't you put that in practice? It's easy: just stop writing this gibberish and stay there "just being"!
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 09:14 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:

NAACP;

Go back about 7 posts. That'll get rid of your bewilderment.

I posted the following in another discussion thread and thought you might get value out of it.

Mark;

I see the difficulty you and I are having. You think that empirical (measurable, definable) data has something to do with 'knowing'.

Empirical data gives you measurable, definable proof of the 'world'. 'Knowing' comes from 'Be-ing' and it has nothing to do with the measurable, definable world. That's why you can 'know' and not be able to 'prove'. But you already 'knew' that, didn't you?

You are defining your 'self' from the outside-in, in terms of the world. I'm defining my 'self' from the inside-out, in terms of Be-ing. What I'm saying comes from 'knowing' (Be-ing) and not from 'proving' (the world)

Do you remember when Jesus said “I am not of this world”? I suspect this is what he was talking about. (Yeh, I'm aware that somebody's going to drop the 'other shoe' on what I just said. It's ok, I'm wearing a flak jacket.)


This is not even religion -- not yet religion and no longer philosophy.

Dasein wrote:
You have probably figured out that I don't care about empirical data (worldly stuff) (I also suspect this is what “giving up your 'worldly possessions'” is pointing to), I only care about Be-ing/knowing.


Then who pays for your Internet connection? Or are you sending this posts directly from heaven?

Dasein wrote:
I have to be aware of the world because 'I' live along side of it. Ignoring the world, which includes trying to convince anybody that it doesn't exist would be a dangerous undertaking (like stepping out in front of a car).


Don't worry: you are protected behind your computer -- so stay indoors.

Dasein wrote:
But, 'I' don't have to express my Be-ing as if I am 'the world' (a measurable, definable thing of the world).


No, you are not the word: you are Napoleon.

Dasein wrote:
Also, you are accurate. I don't know what you would say.


And you don't care, either (remember?).

Dasein wrote:
Whether you want to admit it or not, the first thing you 'see' is 'table' with a tablecloth, silverware, dishes, and place mats and not the way you explained it.


And you don't care about any of those things, which are sadly "measurable"...
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2010 11:45 am
@guigus,
Guigus;
Quote:
This is not even religion -- not yet religion and no longer philosophy.

It's all philosophizing, guigus. Philosophy is the source of all 'ologies'.

So let me get this straight, you are the one who determines what is and what isn't philosophy? That's convenient! That way you don't have to think.

I guess nobody told you to think before you 'spew'! It's kind of like a monkey puffing up his chest, flailing his arms about, and screaming loudly to defend his territory.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2010 01:10 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:

Guigus;
Quote:
This is not even religion -- not yet religion and no longer philosophy.

It's all philosophizing, guigus. Philosophy is the source of all 'ologies'.


And I am proud of philosophy for that...

Dasein wrote:
So let me get this straight, [...]


How exciting...

Dasein wrote:
you are the one who determines what is and what isn't philosophy? That's convenient! That way you don't have to think.


You are terribly mistaken: determining what philosophy is requires a lot of thinking. And if you think I am the one who has the answer, then I feel flattered...

Anyways, you are the one who has thrown away all thinking into the abyss of your own self...

Dasein wrote:
I guess nobody told you to think before you 'spew'! It's kind of like a monkey puffing up his chest, flailing his arms about, and screaming loudly to defend his territory.


Although I am not the one to think we are fundamentally different from monkeys -- we are not, as Darwin kindly remembered us -- you are the one acting closer to your own description...

Fortunately, that doesn't surprise me coming from a Heidegger's admirer: this is what comes from such people's abyss upon truth time (I had once a discussion with a Heidegger's admirer in which he acted just like you are acting now, with the difference that we were discussing in person, and he seemed a lot like a monkey ready to attack me, so you are not exactly a novelty to me).
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  2  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2010 01:20 pm
@Dasein,
You know the thing about Heidegger and his followers into the abyss? It is that, since they throw away all reason as a detour from being, they tend to settle their discussions with other people by recurring to crude existence, just like monkeys -- which have no reasoning skills -- do. And most ironically, they complete their attack by accusing their opponents of not thinking!
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2010 06:34 pm
@guigus,
Thanks for demonstrating what I was talking about.

By the way, I have noticed the path your typical conversations have gone with others. Just about every post you make, your "style" is to break down a whole thought into individual sentences, take them out of context, and react.

There really is nothing more to say to you. Your actions speak for themselves.

Although, I do really have to thank you for inviting yourself to opt out from having a dialog with me. To sve you time and energy, I will click on the "Ignore this person" link for you.

I am grateful that there are people like NAACP participating in this forum.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 05:17 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:
Thanks for demonstrating what I was talking about.


Anything I say will "demonstrate" what you are talking about, since you only hear your own voice.

Dasein wrote:
By the way, I have noticed the path your typical conversations have gone with others. Just about every post you make, your "style" is to break down a whole thought into individual sentences, take them out of context, and react.


Sometimes I answer to the whole post, sometimes I respond to each point separately, as I see fit (sorry, but I decide how to structure my posts, not you). And I would call it "approach" or "strategy" rather than "style," which after all is not of much importance. As for "reacting," I see what you are trying to say: that I am assuming a defensive attitude. Again, this is not so: I am attacking you, since I think you are as deleterious as the philosophy of Heidegger.

Dasein wrote:
There really is nothing more to say to you. Your actions speak for themselves.


Have you ever had anything to say? And everybody's actions speak for themselves -- including yours.

Dasein wrote:
Although, I do really have to thank you for inviting yourself to opt out from having a dialog with me. To sve you time and energy, I will click on the "Ignore this person" link for you.


If you want to officially ignore me (which you have unofficially done so far), that's your choice, but don't put the blame on me: I have nothing to do with your decisions. You are sufficiently grown-up to assume them (you remind me of children covering their ears with both hands and yelling at the same time to assure they don't hear the other children).

Dasein wrote:
I am grateful that there are people like NAACP participating in this forum.


And I'm sorry there are people here like you, but it's part of the game: I will certainly not ignore you, that's for sure.
0 Replies
 
permoda12345
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 02:07 am
@hawkeye10,
they don't get lost , they got absorbed by light energy .
0 Replies
 
MetaXtential
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2012 11:22 pm
It would be better if philosophers were lost in the clouds but instead they are lost in the collective, leap frogging, and piggy backing off other people's thoughts. To change this figure out what your view of the world is without all the reading and listening to other people babble!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2012 11:24 pm
@MetaXtential,
Even new thoughts are rooted in something learned before.
MetaXtential
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2012 01:05 am
@cicerone imposter,
Well, if you are a true philosopher you would have emptied yourself of all those thoughts that may or may not have been true. You must first start to build your own foundation making sure your roots are firmly planted with your own ideas. However, this is only my perspective and I tend to agree with objectivism.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2012 11:04 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Even new thoughts are rooted in something learned before.
True... We think with forms which have all been considered and found true before we come by them, and the conclusions we draw either lead to our rejection of some forms or of our faithful use of them...The problem of course is that most of what we considered as settled truth can never be settled, and our thoughts in regard to them hardly rise above the level of speculation, and here I refer to moral forms, or what is perhaps more properly called transendent concepts..
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2012 11:14 am
@MetaXtential,
MetaXtential wrote:

Well, if you are a true philosopher you would have emptied yourself of all those thoughts that may or may not have been true. You must first start to build your own foundation making sure your roots are firmly planted with your own ideas. However, this is only my perspective and I tend to agree with objectivism.
You are not speaking too clearly here, but metaphoically for sure...Truth as knowledge is what makes people philosophers... False knowledge never drew near to a true conclusion...The problem is that only of the physical world may we have anything approaching certainty of knowledge, or a true form...It is little wonder then, that the problems that drill philosophers in this age are the very thorns that impale humanity... It is ethics and morality whatever may be their difference that are the problem, and that resist simple solution simply because no objective form can be found to represent the problem... In morals philosophy is no more certain than theology, but the focus, being humanity is certainly far removed from God, and even there, God and our belief in God is only one more of the problems plagueing us...We conceive of ourselves spiritually which only means we cannot conceive of life at all...And our spiritual and physical existence depends upon certain moral forms being valued and shared... And how do we get there if we cannot even properly define these infinite forms???
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2012 04:01 pm
@Fido,
It can't be done; everybody's truth subjectively varies with what the think and feel are right.
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 06:07 am
@cicerone imposter,
This is even more heightened with the advent of the internet and smart phones. Now everyone has an opinion and believes they are right...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 10:43 am
@Procrustes,
Procrustes wrote:

This is even more heightened with the advent of the internet and smart phones. Now everyone has an opinion and believes they are right...
True enough, but most people, while they talk just fine, and are able to communicate well enough have not the conscious tools to either think and reason effectively, or to express their thoughts in a rational manor... I want the people heard, and I want them to have the power in their lives, and cell phones and computers are the perfect tool for that end...

People do not all have to be Einsteins to know what they want and need... They have to have a veto on that which might harm them, and a vote on any subject that may affect them...Most people hold opinions that if played out would injure them... If they express them, then fine; but if they had the power to impliment them, they would have to learn, and though this is difficult in a group it is possible for enough to learn to teach...Having others to blame is a problem... If another is in the room when you smash your thumb with a hammer they could be the cause... People buy their opinions they way they buy their milk, and because they do not want the trouble of owning a cow in the real or aliterative sense... Facing consequences is a fact of democracy, and that is why the process is the slowest of all forms of social organization... It is not built for speed but accuracy... Talk until all agree, and no crying about it later...
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 10:58 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
Talk until all agree, and no crying about it later

Or until something else comes along that all agree with. Time is a constraint and contextualises I would think.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2012 11:01 pm
@Procrustes,
Often times, it's easy to know when people are right or wrong - simply based on facts, common sense, and logic.

Case on point: Conservatives continue to advocate for more tax cuts for the rich.

Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2012 06:25 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Often times, it's easy to know when people are right or wrong - simply based on facts, common sense, and logic.

Case on point: Conservatives continue to advocate for more tax cuts for the rich.


It is clear that when nations like the Iroquois joined into their confederacy it was based upon consensus; but the reverse of that: Intractable Disagreement probably accounts for much of the break-up of nations and their expansions into every corner of the square earth... The Iroquois only split on the issue of supporting the Americans against the British, and they paid a fearful price for that choice, and yet, by that point there was no good choice... In every issue they did what governments should and usually could do if inclined, and that is to consider the possible ramifications of decisions well into the future, in the case of the Iroquois: seven generations...

Capitalism like the Chrisitianity which has been its support has no sense of time or future... Christians are to think of death as coming as a thief in the night, and Business has the next quarter only... Time is an element of all rational thought, and this is denied to government on both ends, because of the faith of the people in capitalism, and in religion... Neither has a future, but their command of the now is absolute... As far as opinions go, people are entitled... What people are not entitled to is control of government which must act in a rational mannor by virtue of faith in God, or control of wealth...

Government should exist for people, and ours was founded giving to property and to people of property far greater rights and access to government... The churches protected from taxation were also protected from the poor decisions of government which they were left free to influence... Until these monsters can be put back in the boxes, they will continue to run us amok... Government is a rational pursuit for rational people, and people who think only with their Bibles or Pocket books should be excluded... If a law is good for America it will be good for Americans...That is all we need to know...
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/22/2019 at 01:56:16