what is the beggining of philosophy?

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

spendi, Your generalized criticism has no merit. Try detailing your opinion; I very much doubt you can.

You had written--

Quote:

spendi, Your perception of reality on the subject of man and woman has no basis in fact. Your supposed many readings have rendered you emasculated, and not a good judge of what can be considered gender knowledge. Your basic knowledge about the sexes have grown from your pub world experience; not a reliable source for knowledge.

That's meaningless. It is a collection of words concocted for the sole purpose of you stroking you fat ego and putting some syrup on its dummy. You haven't the faintest idea of my experiences with women or of my reading on the subject of the relationship between the sexes. And neither you nor the generality of A2Kers would thank me for going into the details of the matters or the conclusions I have come to.

Anyway-you don't belong on a philosophy thread and neither does Rex. Your feminine inclinations towards the Argumentum ad Verecundiam, the Argumentum ex Absurdo, the Argumentum ex Fortiori, the Argumentum Baculinum, the Argumentum ad Crumenam, the Argumentum ad Rem and the Argumentum ex Silliustwatia disqualify you from the company of the philosophically minded not only on here but in any place and at any time. Your intellectual habits are too ingrained for correction and the least you could do is recognise the fact and cease cluttering up a philosophy thread with your crappy and cheapskate inanities which are entirely forgiveable in members of the fair sex as they have much more important matters to contend with.

Edward Gibbon wrote--

Quote:

The satirist may laugh, the philosopher may preach, but Reason herself will respect the prejudices and habits which have been consecrated by the experience of mankind.

Regarding which Professor James O. Grunebaum of Buffalo State College wrote--

Quote:

The historian Gibbon* was perhaps influenced by Hume, who professed himself unable, despite his scepticism, to avoid the 'current of nature'** ineluctably sweeping him into belief in the very things he professed to doubt, such as the external world. But Hume gave this thought an additional twist. It is not just that habit and experience 'conspire' to make us see everything in certain ways, but that reason itself is 'nothing but a wonderful and unintelligible instinct arising from them'.

* Who neither of you have read as I have (twice).

**An endless ocean of "sweating lust", to use Shakespeare's neat phrase.

Both of you are far more Christian than I have ever been. I respect all religions as adaptations suited to the soil from which they spring. Even those involving human sacrifice. The atheist position springs from no other soil than that of the narcissistic ego at odds with the mores of the society it has been created and nurtured in. Which is not soil at all but a sort of dust in the air which covers the whole world.

2 Replies

@spendius,

My comments are in red

Quote:

Anyway-you don't belong on a philosophy thread and neither does Rex. Your intellectual habits are too ingrained for correction and the least you could do is recognise the fact and cease cluttering up a philosophy thread with your crappy and cheapskate inanities which are entirely forgiveable in members of the fair sex as they have much more important matters to contend with.

* Who neither of you have read as I have (twice).

**An endless ocean of "sweating lust", to use Shakespeare's neat phrase.

And you have no intellectual habits that are ingrained?

Spendi you tell us how well read you are then tell me I don't belong in a philosophy forum and then quote Shakespeare after you misspell recognize and forgivable.

Oh and then you insinuate that women are stupid because they are preoccupied with I would guess birthing babies. This is merely insulting and the height of male chauvinistic arrogance. I would assume baboons have more common sense than that.

Did you get your philosophy from a philosophy for idiots book?

Something in your head is simply not connected. The sparks are there but the pistons are not getting any compression. Your train of logic is at a complete standstill.

Both of you are far more Christian than I have ever been. I respect all religions as adaptations suited to the soil from which they spring. Even those involving human sacrifice.

Oh so you are a philosophizing barbarian now, how about we begin by sacrificing your own ego?

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendi, Meaningless dribble as usual; you need to get out into the real world once-in-awhile to learn from reality. Yours emanates from your own limited exposure to the world we live in.

RexRed detailed some of your limitations, but that's only a beginning.

As for my participation on any of the philosophy threads, most agree with me more than they you. That would be a clue to most folks who comprehends intelligent interchange of ideas.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I have not the slightest interest in whether more A2Kers agree with you than those who might agree with me. You haven't the slightest philosophical sensibility, or scientific sensibility for that matter, and what you are doing on a philosophy thread I cannot think. Or on a science thread. Whether it boosts your sense of self-esteem to be seen hob-nobbing with your superiors I do not know but in case it does I might advise you that neither subject is at all interesting once one gets beyond star-struck distant worship in the service of the function aforementioned.

It is well known, as one might expect because it is obvious, that the more people there are who agree with a proposition the less intelligence is required to understand it. Thus, most average propositions can be understood by people with IQs of 100. For propositions such as "meaningless dribble", that I "need to get out into the real world once-in-awhile to learn from reality", that my reality emanates from my own limited exposure to the world we live in" and that Rex has "detailed some of my limitations," do not even require such a level of understanding as that.

You therefore are engaged in dumbing down the thread to your own level as anybody can see who compares your post to the post it pretented to respond to. As philosophy is engaged in undumbing, your presence on it is at odds with the philosophy forum's aims none of which involve a popularity competition. Being popular with your end of the intelligence range is as easy on here as it is in the pub and, indeed, as it is in an industrialised bacon producing unit. One need only rattle a stick in a bucket, as George Orwell said.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It's just that Philosophy was my minor in college, but got a better grade point average in this course than my Business Administration course.

Who graded you in Philosophy? Yourself?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I don't grade myself.

And if your posts are anything to go by your college courses were not worth a nose blow on a page of a 1990 Guardian.

1 Reply

@spendius,

General statements without any proof - as usual. Give it up, spendi. You're on the losing end of most arguments.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You have successfully trolled me off this thread.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Good riddence!

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

You have successfully trolled me off this thread.

It takes two to tango. Shift the blame and that is not very adult of you either Spendi. Perhaps owning up to the idea that some of your "philosophy" stinks might be the most beneficial approach to expanding your own perceptions. Philosophy 101 is not the end all of human thought. The real world is the final test as to if what is learned in a college classroom is solvent or not. Your real world applications seem lacking to me and apparently others also. I don't classify a pub and it's down and out patrons as the best cross section of the real world either.

0 Replies

@RexRed,

I find you to be way ahead of your time RexRed and I am glad that there are people like CI that care about people and share a good way viewing things with them.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

I find you to be way ahead of your time RexRed and I am glad that there are people like CI that care about people and share a good way viewing things with them.

Thank you RL, it is nice to have confirmation by someone looking in. Smile

0 Replies

@Fido,

Hi Fido!

What has a God (of any description) got to do with religion?

Religion defined: A way of life.

Thank you!
Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

Hi Fido!

What has a God (of any description) got to do with religion?

Religion defined: A way of life.

Thank you!
Mark...

It would be easier to define a philosophy as a way of life than religion, which might we be described in a number of fashions apart from this life specifically, such as, way of eternal life, way of life in relation to a single quasi idea: God, or way of spiritual life... Philosophy is a way of life in relation to all concepts, which is judgement and knowledge; and of course, in the general sense and parlance, when we say: That's my philosophy, or ask: What is your philosophy, we are saying or asking that very same thing: What is your way of life, and not your spiritual beliefs...

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

One's own definition coming into fruition. The sacred seven can be determined by definition, An environmental acquisition system of a living organism is that system of an organism which must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired into a product that maintains and promotes the life of that organism.

The human mind is one of these. When it starts to function, it starts to philosophize.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

man, your like spam...why don´t you go acquire attention to another forum instead...every Thread I walk in I have to read the same "religious" crap over and over again...are you on drugs or something ? f*** off !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

If you have trouble with the question, perhaps you can have some one coach you and hold your hand.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

What a cartoonish character you are...is it the case that nobody has yet had the courage to inform you that you are just straight dumb ? "I" did this "I", achieve that, "I" am the one who knows better...did you cross the edipo´s complex age ? Can´t you see how laughable its your behaviour ? How squared is your reasoning ? How superficial are your concepts ? How linear is your Cosmogony ? Man....what is it that you can see ?
Buy yourself a megaphone and go preach into the streets, you might get some coins for it...
God praise the man hallelujah !!!
...you are the one who has seen the light while we all dwell in darkness.
Well, let us be there and focus your own ass while preaching, preacher boy !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Did you run out of prozac? Or did you microwave your hair dry too long this morning?

0 Replies

Well, well, well!

Did anyone here ever realise that ALL the philosophers of old had different opinions, and quite often disagreed with one another?

And, when you consider philosophy to any great length, you, like I, will likely conclude that it is indeed, a load of bollox.

I still enjoy it though, but it is pretty pointless.

So the true question we should be aking here is: What is the beginning of a load of bollox?

IMO there has always been a load of bollox and there always will be a load of bollox, in fact, everything is a load of bollox.

Thank you, and endeavour endeavourings.
Mark...

1 Reply

what is the beggining of philosophy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know