I believe....

@JLNobody,

....true, but still he was referring to what was best possibly meant with the usage of "know"...nonetheless you are right, debating the choice of words tiresome of not is the bone of the matter more often then not...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

....true, but still he was referring to what was best possibly meant with the usage of "know"...nonetheless you are right, debating the choice of words tiresome of not is the bone of the matter more often then not...

Its an exercise in futility
to debate with disagreement of the definitions of words,
employing the same words to mean different things; a fool's errand.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

...the thing is they don't always mean the same things even when we thought so...clarifying meaning on words is by far the most difficult and important task in philosophy prevented one is interested in avoiding word salads...often people indulge in the opposite idea as semantic poetry and the sound of our own voice always seems to carry a lot of depth...a bit like pushing while seated in the toilet throne...we tend to think that "feeling with strong intention" does bring some sort of magical powerful substantiation into the debates...but in the end you just produced **** with a great deal of emotional care and commitment... Laughing

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

(I must admit that quibbling over semantics gets awfully tiresome to me after a while. One reason why I don't participate much in the so-called philosophy threads.)

I have to agree with you Andy, and it's a shame that this has so soon fallen into the usual "it depends on what your definition of 'is', 'is" type of stuff.

It now just sounds like some old blowhards listening to themselves, thinking they are saying something.

Maybe to some, what I originally posted wasn't sophisticated, grammatically perfect or complicated. It was something that hit me strongly, and felt like I'd solidified something within myself by writing it down.

For the rest of you...carry on. Your words are music to your own ears.

No insult meant to that, if it makes you happy listening to yourself, go for it.

1 Reply

@chai2,

Unfortunately, when we debate issues that are almost strictly abstract, our only common ground is our premises. When there is no common empirical source to rely on for reference, words serve that function, and so, in many cases, philosophy is only semantics. Philosophical insights are never deeper than our understanding of what the words used to convey it mean.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Unfortunately, when we debate issues that are almost strictly abstract, our only common ground is our premises. When there is no common empirical source to rely on for reference, words serve that function, and so, in many cases, philosophy is only semantics. Philosophical insights are never deeper than our understanding of what the words used to convey it mean.

I wasn't starting a debate when I made my initial post. I wasn't even talking philosophy, but the nuts and bolts of bodies decomposing, emitting the energy it contained, and **** like that.

So, that blows that out of the water.

I can't help what ya'll turn it into, but I didn't see anyplace where I asked "what you you think about that?"

The threads all yours now boys. Make it whatever you want, I had my say.
Have at it.

2 Replies

@chai2,

chai,

For what it is worth? I read your first post TWICE....... I loved it, and I agree with the way you think, but it was also in my opinion not just words, it had alot of meaning to it.

0 Replies

@chai2,

Quote:

I wasn't even talking philosophy, but the nuts and bolts of bodies decomposing, emitting the energy it contained, and **** like that.

I've read your OP again. It's philosophy. Sorry you didn't like how the thread evolved.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

...a very objective, very factual remark Cyr...yes, philosophy can turn out annoying...all the while aiming to an insight, it always confront us with our ignorance...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I wasn't even talking philosophy, but the nuts and bolts of bodies decomposing, emitting the energy it contained, and **** like that.

I've read your OP again. It's philosophy. Sorry you didn't like how the thread evolved.

That's probably why I said I can't help what ya'll turn it into. You may have needed to read that as well.

I can be pretty accepting that way, I can't help what someone decides to do.

As I've said, carry on.

1 Reply

@chai2,

I hope that we did not hurt your feelings, Chai

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I hope that we did not hurt your feelings, Chai

David

Well David, I just don't know how much clearer I can make it that what anyone decides to turn a thread into is up to them.

I can't say why you would think my feelings are hurt, when I'm feeling accepting, letting people know to go on about their posting, and being as neutral as I know how in my comments.

Do you feel guilty about something you said? Because your statement can't be based on anything I said.

There's really nothing else to address to me, because I already said whatever I had to say on the subject in my OP.

Talk amongst yourselves.

1 Reply

@chai2,

I for one would like you to keep talking...your idea on "energy" on "movement" on "process" on "becoming" as believing in something as extended beyond the here and now, believing in the very process of extending (energy) sounds interesting to me...for one, you don't necessarily call it consciousness, for another, you accept yourself as part of it...

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know