43
   

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 12:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes, Frank's worse weakness is his vanity...
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 12:47 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

What you think is irrelevant. Sorry to break it to you but it's not all about you.

I am on record here opposing armchair philosophy and the fallacious distinction between philosophy and life. There's a bunch of philowankers around here who think that it's okay to muse around in a philosophical dreamland but that none of it applies to their daily lives. They use philosophy as a pastime, it's like a video game for them. They don't take it seriously.

I call them cheats, and if you are one of them, that makes you a cheat too.


Sure you do! And sure that makes me a cheat, because I am one of them.

And I strongly suspect you are also.

If you were in a conversation with someone sitting on a park bench...and the person said to you, "I know we are here sitting on a bench in the park watching all these people walking past us..."...more than likely you would not be challenging the person...because in everyday life, that would be a normal and reasonable thing to say.

That same kind of conversation, in a philosophy forum...would elicit a very different response from most people who discuss these kinds of things...including you.

The word "know"...as used casually in everyday life...IS used differently than in a philosophical discussion, Olivier.

But your compulsion to say I am wrong is so strong...it is difficult for you to acknowledge that.

Hey...no problem. I've got time to talk to you about it.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 12:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You,
Quote:
@Frank Apisa,
What you think is irrelevant. Sorry to break it to you but it's not all about you.


Ahhh, I see you're beginning to see the light. It's always about me, me, me...with Frank. His ideas are primary and the only truths - even though he guesses most of the time. He doesn't even know whether his life is real or not!






Ahhh, ci...good to see you are still pretending to be ignoring me.

You can't...you are my bitch!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 12:49 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Yes, Frank's worse weakness is his vanity...


No...its my armoire.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 01:10 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
If you were in a conversation with someone sitting on a park bench...and the person said to you, "I know we are here sitting on a bench in the park watching all these people walking past us..."...more than likely you would not be challenging the person...because in everyday life, that would be a normal and reasonable thing to say.

That same kind of conversation, in a philosophy forum...would elicit a very different response from most people who discuss these kinds of things...including you.

??? Like what response? "No you don't know that you are sitting on a bench... For all you know, you could be a giant blue carrot watching a movie, or a brain-in-a-vat."???

Would that response be useful philosophical knowledge, that one can use to live a better life, or would it be useless intellectual wanking? Think about it before answering, if you can.

Most philosophers don't loose time playing with the idea that the world as we see it may be a complete illusion. Only kids do so; they play with philosophical ideas just like they play with their genitals. Nothing to be taken seriously.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 01:21 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
If you were in a conversation with someone sitting on a park bench...and the person said to you, "I know we are here sitting on a bench in the park watching all these people walking past us..."...more than likely you would not be challenging the person...because in everyday life, that would be a normal and reasonable thing to say.

That same kind of conversation, in a philosophy forum...would elicit a very different response from most people who discuss these kinds of things...including you.

??? Like what response? "No you don't know that you are sitting on a bench... For all you know, you could be a giant blue carrot watching a movie, or a brain-in-a-vat."???


There is the possibility that YOU would not treat the word "know" in that context differently if sitting on a park bench with a friend versus being in a philosophical discussion.

If so...stay away from philosophical discussions, because you would not be equipped for them.

Quote:
Would that response be useful philosophical knowledge, that one can use to live a better life, or would it be useless intellectual wanking? Think about it before answering, if you can.


The responses would be different because the situation would be different. I suspect you are more than intelligent enough to see the difference...and why the response would be different...but you are unable to acknowledge the difference for some reason.

Wonder what that is???


Quote:

Most philosophers don't loose time playing with the idea that the world as we see it may be a complete illusion. Only kids do so; they play with philosophical ideas just like they play with their genitals. Nothing to be taken seriously.


Maybe "most philosophers" do not (actually, I do not know most philosophers), but almost all the philosophy discussions here in A2K...contain people doing exactly that.



I wonder what is causing you to have so much difficulty seeing and acknowledging that?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 02:54 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Maybe "most philosophers" do not (actually, I do not know most philosophers), but almost all the philosophy discussions here in A2K...contain people doing exactly that.

I wonder what is causing you to have so much difficulty seeing and acknowledging that?

I acknowledge that most A2K 'philosophic' discussions are for entertainment value, and done by wankers for wankers, not by serious philosophers.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 02:57 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Maybe "most philosophers" do not (actually, I do not know most philosophers), but almost all the philosophy discussions here in A2K...contain people doing exactly that.

I wonder what is causing you to have so much difficulty seeing and acknowledging that?

I acknowledge that most A2K 'philosophic' discussions are for entertainment value, and done by wankers for wankers, not by serious philosophers.


But even wankers discussing philosophy would treat the word "know" differently in the two different circumstances I suggested.

Why don't you just acknowledge that?
secondusername
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 04:06 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Look. You sexy minded men. Whether you want to believe it or not. What is going on in my life is a good example of what could happen to you. You need to be able to identify it. Understand it. Else more.

Maybe not the same exact thing will happen to you but something similar could to anyone. If it's not happening now. You need to be able to identify the situation. 

But maybe it all depends on how deep a person is. For example. Have you ever been proposed to online. If so how did you react. Wait. You're men. No woman would propose to you. But I'm saying then put yourself in a woman's shoes. How deep of an individual are you. How would you react. How serious would you take the question. What would it mean to you.

Philosophy. phi·los·o·phy [fi-los-uh-fee]
—noun, plural phi·los·o·phies.

the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
a particular system of thought based on such study or investigation: the philosophy of Spinoza.
the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
an attitude of rationality, patience, composure, and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.

I use proposal as an example because to me that is a life changing question. That if I were asked online I couldn't answer with a direct yes, no/reply because of how fu**ed up my head is. If my head weren't fu**ed up as it is my answer to the question if the right man asked would be, "when?". But unfortunately my head is fu**ed up. This is if online. If in person, the right man would know he were the right man and he would ask me. In the future. Just an example. 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 06:07 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
But even wankers discussing philosophy would treat the word "know" differently in the two different circumstances I suggested.

ESPECIALLY wankers. A decent philosopher understands that philosophy is about us, our lives, our thoughts and our language, our place in this world etc. That's why they TALK of real life, why Levi Strauss wrote about race, why Bergson devoted a book to laughter...

Now, you might argue that the criteria and standards used to assess knowledge vary according to domains of knowledge. In biology, one uses statistics to assess the risk of error in concluding X or Y, usually nicknamed the alpha risk, and 5% is considered bearable. In sociology, higher risks of error are tolerated. In law, one often hear of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. But all that's within a consistent logic or epistemology that says: there is always a risk of error in inferring anything from facts (aka 'knowing'). The ways 'knowing' happens are similar, it's all based on observation and logic, but different domains accept different levels of risk, different cut-off points between meaningless and meaningful. That's all.

secondusername
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 06:24 pm
@Olivier5,
All Frank had to do was believe me and make them get out of my head. I'll never know what Frank Apisa is like in person.

Whether these two get out of my head or not I've already made up my mind as to the path I have to take. Time. I'm allowing time to take place. No matter how hard, how difficult it is for me to have patience.


0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 06:26 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
But even wankers discussing philosophy would treat the word "know" differently in the two different circumstances I suggested.

ESPECIALLY wankers. A decent philosopher understands that philosophy is about us, our lives, our thoughts and our language, our place in this world etc. That's why they TALK of real life, why Levi Strauss wrote about race, why Bergson devoted a book to laughter...

Now, you might argue that the criteria and standards used to assess knowledge vary according to domains of knowledge. In biology, one uses statistics to assess the risk of error in concluding X or Y, usually nicknamed the alpha risk, and 5% is considered bearable. In sociology, higher risks of error are tolerated. In law, one often hear of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. But all that's within a consistent logic or epistemology that says: there is always a risk of error in inferring anything from facts (aka 'knowing'). The ways 'knowing' happens are similar, it's all based on observation and logic, but different domains accept different levels of risk, different cut-off points between meaningless and meaningful. That's all.


Olivier...I am not talking about knowledge, or biology, or laboratories, or any of that other stuff. You are just trying to divert from the subject of our discussion by introducing all that crap.

We are discussing the use of the word "know" in an everyday context...versus the use of that word in the context of a discussion in a philosophy forum.

If you do not understand that the word "know" is treated differently in everyday use...versus when it is used in a philosophy forum discussion...I doubt anything will help the idea to penetrate.

There most assuredly is a difference…and the difference makes sense whether you see it or not.

But as I said earlier…whatever benefit or satisfaction you derive from reflexively disagreeing with me is going to trump everything else….and this attempt to change the dynamic of what we were discussing is going to start. So I guess it best I overlook it as much as I can.

Peace!

secondusername
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 06:31 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I know more than any of you men will ever know. And I'm not referring to book smarts.

The feelings are mutual. Mutual? Why so? Because. I'm a mutual individual. You say peace. Then so be it. You say you hate me so may you feel the way you feel. Love to me is mutual. Being in love is a different story.

Attack me with your hatred I'll only love you. in return. Attack me with your love. I'll only want to love you more.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 06:45 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I was trying to help you with you called 'crap', explaining how different domains deal with doubt differently. Now YOU are being contrarian.

But if there is indeed ANOTHER clear difference, which I missed, between the use of the term 'know' in A2K philosophical debates and in 'real life', you should be able to explain WHAT difference that is exactly...

And once you've done that (IF you can do that), then I will ask whether that implies your philosophical debates have no bearing on 'real life'.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 06:58 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

I was trying to help you with you called 'crap', explaining how different domains deal with doubt differently. Now YOU are being contrarian.

But if there is indeed ANOTHER clear difference, which I missed, between the use of the term 'know' in A2K philosophical debates and in 'real life', you should be able to explain WHAT difference that is exactly...

And once you've done that (IF you can do that), then I will ask whether that implies your philosophical debates have no bearing on 'real life'.




Oh, Olivier...explaining things to you so you can indulge in your needed disagreement does nothing for me.

I've already given examples of how the use of the word "know" in everyday life would differ from its use in a discussion in a philosophy forum.

Deal with that...if you want and can.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 29 Jan, 2014 07:52 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You gave as an example a guy sitting on a bench and saying "I know I am sitting on a bench"... So what? What would A2K armchair philosophers say when sitting on a bench? Stuff like: I know its not me sitting on a bench right now but just a pack of mindless molecules determined by context and chemistry"?

And then at some point they will no doubt think it's time for dinner or a snack, otherwise known as additional needed molecules? And they will live their little (or big) lives like the rest of us, right?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 07:14 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

You gave as an example a guy sitting on a bench and saying "I know I am sitting on a bench"... So what? What would A2K armchair philosophers say when sitting on a bench? Stuff like: I know its not me sitting on a bench right now but just a pack of mindless molecules determined by context and chemistry"?

And then at some point they will no doubt think it's time for dinner or a snack, otherwise known as additional needed molecules? And they will live their little (or big) lives like the rest of us, right?


The word "know" in some contexts (discussions in a philosophy forum, a science discussion)...simply requires greater rigor than when used in everyday context.

If you do not get what I am saying with that by now, Olivier, I doubt anything further I say will get it through to you.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 08:13 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The word "know" in some contexts (discussions in a philosophy forum, a science discussion)...simply requires greater rigor than when used in everyday context.

Rigor? Not very clear... But that's ok: I've created a new thread devoted to what A2K philosophers would say while sitting on a bench. Your contribution would be most welcome. After all it was your idea, even if you failed to flush it out.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 08:27 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
The word "know" in some contexts (discussions in a philosophy forum, a science discussion)...simply requires greater rigor than when used in everyday context.

Rigor? Not very clear... But that's ok: I've created a new thread devoted to what A2K philosophers would say while sitting on a bench. Your contribution would be most welcome. After all it was your idea, even if you failed to flush it out.


Fine. Put a link here and I'll come by.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Mon 3 Feb, 2014 10:05 pm
@secondusername,
Quote:
Have you ever been proposed to online. If so how did you react.

rofl. what does this have to do with anything?
Quote:
That if I were asked online I couldn't answer with a direct yes, no/reply because of how fu**ed up my head is. If my head weren't fu**ed up as it is my answer to the question if the right man asked would be, "when?".

what seems fucked up here is that you think it is possible for the 'right man' to propose to you ONLINE?? seriously??? rofflflflfl
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 06:30:19