When will modern mankind progress?

Note that i have not denied that there is such an activity. I am asking him to be clear about his terms. He has stated that the method of philosophizing (i didn't need your definitions, i was looking for his) have been characterized by superstition and stupidity. That is why i asked him if he applies that to the range of recognized philosophers from Plato to Wittgenstein. If, in fact, he meant talking about talk, or talking about talking, i'm rather bemused to consider how that could ever end wars and crime.

So far, what he has to say looks like so much gobbledygook to me.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

That's a very puerile and pathetic reaction. I've not reacted emotionally at all, i've asked you a series of questions which it appears you are not prepared to answer. If anyone here appears to have become emotional and hysterical, it is you. You have suggested that i suffer from some estrogen syndrome (if you're going to use the English language, it's a simple matter to get the correct spellings of words), that i'm psychotic, that i'm emotional and hysterical. And yet you have not answered a single one of my questions, other than to assert that you have made it all plain, when clearly you have not.

It is ironic to be told that i'm reacting emotionally by someone who makes such wild charges against me because i have the temerity to question what you've written. If anyone here needs to get a grip, it's you.

1 Reply

At such time as you make clear what methods of philosophizing will lead to enlightenment--first having provided a clear, concise and universally acceptable definition of enlightenment--and thereby end wars and crime, i'll be interested to read it. As long as you just want to sling personal slurs at me, it will appear to me that you really have no argument, and that you weren't making any sense to begin with.

0 Replies

Just to be fair about this, i went back to read all the posts up to the point at which i posted to say that you haven't defined your terms. There is nothing in that drivel which defines your terms. Largely, it was an exercise in you exchanging nasty remarks with Fil. Not much enlightenment to be had there, Bubba.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I'm not sure he was saying that philosophizing would end wars, but instead that becoming "enlightened" would. After asking him in what sense he was using "enlightened", he responded:

HexHammer wrote:

It's not so much enlightmen as in religious and spiritual understanding, but founded on modern scientific principles. It's understanding of psycology, medical science, physics, ecology, geology ..etc. Maybe the better pharse would be "understanding of science", but whatever you call it, it's still the underlying principles which I have clarifyed before.

So, I suppose his only claim is that, if humans were more knowledgeable about everything, humans would be less susceptible to repeat mistakes and engage in wars. Until we get some further clarification, I will have to agree that this is gobbledygook. Because that is such a broad claim it borders on nonsense.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That's a very puerile and pathetic reaction. I've not reacted emotionally at all, i've asked you a series of questions which it appears you are not prepared to answer. If anyone here appears to have become emotional and hysterical, it is you. You have suggested that i suffer from some estrogen syndrome (if you're going to use the English language, it's a simple matter to get the correct spellings of words), that i'm psychotic, that i'm emotional and hysterical. And yet you have not answered a single one of my questions, other than to assert that you have made it all plain, when clearly you have not.

It is ironic to be told that i'm reacting emotionally by someone who makes such wild charges against me because i have the temerity to question what you've written. If anyone here needs to get a grip, it's you.

Just because I'm a horrible speller, doesn't diminish the meaning of my words, it's a clear distinction that you either can't recognize or refuse, either way it's a behaviour which I described in my "burning house anology".

I havn't been able to take any of your agressive questions seriously, in Zetherin explenation I see nothing that should demand any answer of your invalid question about my philosophy.

But seriously, have your hormon lvls checked, you are cooked.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Because that is such a broad claim it borders on nonsense.

I belive I'v always taken time to explain myself whenever you have asked, so kicking my ass like that is unprofound and unreasonable.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Quote:

Because that is such a broad claim it borders on nonsense.

Bingo ! ! !

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

I'm not kicking your ass, buddy. Sorry, just observing and relaying my observations.

How about giving us a more concise version of your claim?

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

You seem not to be able to address any of my questions without making hysterical charges about "hormone levels." That is the essence of argumentum ad hominem, and it makes it appear that you are unwilling or unable to defend your propositions.

I have asked you if you assert that all the recognized philosophers from Platon to Wittgenstein used methods flawed by "supersition and stupidity." You have not answered. I have asked you what the goal of the improvement of method will be, so that we may know how progress will be achieved. You have not answered. As i'm not so dense as to need Zetherin's hints, i understand that there is some confused relationship in your screed between this philosophizing method and enlightenment. I have asked you for a definition of enlightenment. You have not answered. I have asked how philosophizing, or an improved method, or enlightenment will end wars and crime. You have not answered.

Rather, you have indulged what seems to be a penchant of yours for flinging insults at people who have the temerity to question you. You did it for nearly two pages with Fil.

Once again, i am not a woman, and it is an absurdity for you to continue the childish insults about hormone therapy. It seems that you have no answers, so i will assume, until you provide some, that this is all gobbledygook, and is essentially just meaningless maundering.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

Hi Hex how is it going? You do bring up a question that I think many of us ask ourselve's. I wonder when I will progess, Do you ever wonder when you will progress?

I do notice that your style seems to inflame emotional responses as you are useing emotional responses yourself. Do you think that you could be emotionally flooding your audience?
I find many people here that seem to be more enlighten than myself. I may have a very hard question for you to answer and that is, "do you find anyone more enlighten than yourself? If not do you find anyone here on the same level?

If you do would you be humble enough to let us know who they are?
I am sure that they would feel honored by your reply. I am asking a sincere question and I hope that you do not take it out of context.
Your friend, Reasoning Self Logic

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I'm not kicking your ass, buddy. Sorry, just observing and relaying my observations.

How about giving us a more concise version of your claim?

Then ASK!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You seem not to be able to address any of my questions without making hysterical charges about "hormone levels." That is the essence of argumentum ad hominem, and it makes it appear that you are unwilling or unable to defend your propositions.

I have asked you if you assert that all the recognized philosophers from Platon to Wittgenstein used methods flawed by "supersition and stupidity." You have not answered. I have asked you what the goal of the improvement of method will be, so that we may know how progress will be achieved. You have not answered. As i'm not so dense as to need Zetherin's hints, i understand that there is some confused relationship in your screed between this philosophizing method and enlightenment. I have asked you for a definition of enlightenment. You have not answered. I have asked how philosophizing, or an improved method, or enlightenment will end wars and crime. You have not answered.

Rather, you have indulged what seems to be a penchant of yours for flinging insults at people who have the temerity to question you. You did it for nearly two pages with Fil.

Once again, i am not a woman, and it is an absurdity for you to continue the childish insults about hormone therapy. It seems that you have no answers, so i will assume, until you provide some, that this is all gobbledygook, and is essentially just meaningless maundering.

Since you can't say anything relevant, I'll just put you on ignore.

0 Replies

Since you can't answer simple questions, that's probably the best thing you can do.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Thing is, all holds a piece of the greater puzzle, some holds few, some holds many, just that it usually drown in our own irrational behaviour. Further good and relevant ideas can't be clearly expressed, also by myself, my rethorics suck balls ..plainly spoken, and what really kills the process of my dicussions, are the fact I got ADHD and can't cut out the bloat of silly things that other says, which I will compulsivly attack as I am excelent principal analyst I can't divert my focus away from all these things. I have many such weaknesses.

Well, I'v seen many who have specialized knowledge far greater than mine, but none with the same high rationallity.

1 Reply

I Hex ever wants to commit suicide, i recommend that he jump from the top of his ego. He'll die of starvation on the way down.

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

Ok you seem to be sencere but do know for sure that you are speaking empirical? Could my observations be incorrect? Could your observations be incorrect?

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Ok you seem to be sencere but do know for sure that you are speaking empirical? Could my observations be incorrect? Could your observations be incorrect?

One sees what one want's to see, I can't tell if my own observation is 100% correct as the equilibrilium of mind will cause tunneling observation.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Ah yes, another thing, you might mistake many of my seemingly "emotional outbursts" as being cruel, when it's cynical. The empathy part of me are at times suppressed, which I can't explain but at times it will indeed kick in, but the sporadic behaviour puzzles me.

So where most will keep their mouth shut, my big stupid mouth will compulsivly speak, not with the goal of hurting, but with goal of solving a problem.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

I accept everyone as they are! I do have to say that there are others that would like to know your points of views but you may chase them off before they get to know them. Who knows I may be wrong.

1 Reply

When will modern mankind progress?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know