Simple Philosophy for Man's Philosophy

This is a wind-up right !

im not sure what you mean by that.

Well to be blunt, it's a bit rich for someone who appears not to have a clue about "poetry", "facts" and "truth" to tell a2kers to tailor their philosophy posts in a particular manner. If that was a sample of your "internet philosophy course" I should demand your money back (assuming you paid any). If its any consolation, your views on "reality" and "relativity" show some potential but you are not going to get anywhere with them by telling people to "be careful".

Who died and made you 'the protector of how to think'? Please learn to 'think' before you post, should be a requirement.

There are no 'facts'. Period. A 'fact' is where you reach a conclusion(answer) and you refuse to think past that point because you have concluded it as an answer and now you've got territory to defend!! OH BOY!!

I liked what you had to say about 'simplicity' but if you're looking for that you'd be better off staying away from other people and 'thinking' on your own and for your 'self'. Other people will ALWAYS require some kind of 'proof' for your thought and so long as you continue to give it to them you'll grow 'addicted' to the 'feeling' of acceptence and you'll become a slave to 'reason, logic, etc.' You'll essentially become a slave to proving your existence!!(You don't want that, do you???) The world 'works' because of You, Be-ing. It has nothing to do with any'thing/anyone outside of you.

I suggest you pick up being and Time by Martin Heiddeger and do some work, get other people's 'thoughts' outside your head man!!!!

I love it ! Praise simplicity and recommend Heidegger !

Would that be in the original German so our friend appreciates the difference between Vorstellung and Darstellung, or would "Heidegger for Dummies" be better ?

I see what you're saying, but if you look at Heidegger not as some'thing' to understand and just 'hear' what he has to say - it is the most simple read you could hope for!

...as recommended by Christians with the words of Jesus ?

Have a little think about "word magic". Hypnotists, despots, preachers and car salesmen make a living with it.

Just because you can't understand Heidegger, doesn't mean it's a 'complicated' read. 'Complication' is sort of like a choice, things only get 'complicated' if you say so. Now having said that, Heidegger CAN and very easily be a 'difficult' read if you TRY to understand it. I would suggest just reading it front to back and not worry about 'understanding'.

It is great to simplify as long as one is willing to do the hard work to understand a very complex sort of relationship, and once that is done, to try to make the subject easy to grasp without making yourself look simple...

I don't know about that... There is something not so easy about phenomenology; and though I appreciate his willingness to bend words to his use, that can be a bit confusing... I do appreciate what he did with Kant, and I do which he had left politics aside... There was too much of ambition in him, and too much of a giant ass kiss to German Philosophy in his day... Perhaps in all days for all I know... I am too uneducated and informal at it to speak about Formal Philsophy in this country...

If you just focus on his words there shouldn't be any problem.

Is that a fact?

No, it's a post. Call it what you will.

Bullshit?

Heidegger is deemed to be "complicated" because it is riddled with neologisms and falls outside mainstream "philosophical analysis". Having said that, "magic" comes from its suggestions for "living authentically" i.e. an intiguing paradigm for Existenz which is one of the main traditional mysteries. In this respect it fulfils one of the psychological functions of religion.

Seriously? I wouldn't say that poetry is "clear" and "concise" and in fact in many ways poetry is just the opposite of that. Many times poetry has a vagueness to it where you might think the writer was meaning something in particular and it turns out to be not the case. I would never consider poetry to be something clear and concise but perhaps I am completely wrong.

I also don't think philosophy needs to be clear and concise because like you already said, "The human being is a complex adaptive system." which I can agree with and that only points out that philosophy won't always work because the human condition is always changing. Or what works for one person might not be as effective with someone else. So you can't set standards for philosophy. Some people are just not cut out for certain ways of thinking. It is too tiresome for them to maintain if they try, therefore a different solution is required. Sort of like telling an inmate that they need to consider others before they commit to acting. This is completely foreign to a person who doesn't empathize with someone's condition before causing them harm. Because had they done so they probably wouldn't be in jail to begin with.

Fresco - it's my impression from reading our friend's post on metaphysics, to which I (rather pointlessly) replied, >
http://able2know.org/topic/167109-1#post-4491063
> that he's executing what's known in artillery as "getting a range". This may well be the new technique for teaching philosophy on the internet.

I see your point.
He obviously has no awareness of the shifting paradigmatic historicism (Thomas Khun) and claims to scientificism (Rorty) which operate in what we call "philosophy". Many jumped on the bandwagon of "relativity" but interestingly, far fewer on the scientifically ascendant "uncertainty principle" of quantum mechanics, (perhaps due to its defiance of traditional logic). Indeed the fallout from Rorty's dismissal of "epistemology" (in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature) as mere conversationalism, tends to make all attempts at range definition in philosophy look about as significant as attempts at revising the rules of wrestling.