What would A2K philosophers say while sitting on a bench?

@ossobuco,

Traduttore traditore...

Fabrizio de Andre's universe and style were close to Brassens' and he covered a number of his songs in Italian such as Morire per delle idee:

0 Replies

@Razzleg,

Excellent post.

0 Replies

@Razzleg,

Razzleg wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Neither do I...and most of the time, I am treating the word "know" the way most people who never participate in an Internet philosophy forum treat it.

That was the point I was making...that when we are here discussing philosophy, we have to put a finer edge on it.

Out in the "real world"...we are not thinking about whether or not it is the real world or a illusion...we are trying to get past the next semi without getting edged off the road. ..we are counting our dollars to be sure we have food next week.

I have to disagree with you, philosophically speaking, Frank, sometimes the finest edge is only fit to split hairs. "Know" v. "know" v. "KNOW" --- if these are merely abstract distinctions, then who cares? To each their own. Despite all of the intellectual pretensions of those involved, philosophy is driven by passion, not indifferent "objectivity". Only passion could explain the futile pursuance of truth, beauty, and the rest of it. Objectivity, even if it has only surfaced in the sciences, is a product of the irrational forces of will, determination, and passion -- three terms for the same thing.

The debates held in this forum, as absurd as they often are, are part of the "real world" -- it's the only world that "is", i mean...is. While i appreciate the elect status that you lend to philosoph-speak, i would be much more interested in the views that you share with the people you actually care about.

You're right, "we are [all] trying to get past the next semi without getting edged off the road. ..we are [all] counting our dollars to be sure we have food next week." -- and we're all trying to figure out how those concerns fit into the "big picture". There isn't a neat distinction between getting past the next semi and the contemplation of our own mortality, and there needn't be sharp distinction within the person considering both. Philosophy isn't comprised of esoteric terms, it's composed of attempts to share experience.

I do not know if what I think of as "the real world" actually IS what I suppose it to be. The non-dualists, for instance, MAY BE correct. The people who suspect that the entire of what we "collectively" call the "real world" is actually just an illusion MAY BE correct.

If anyone were to introduce all of this into their regular conversations in everyday life...that person would be considered a candidate for the funny farm.

I do not do that...and I suspect neither do you or any of the others here.

It appears we all treat the word "know" differently in our everyday lives...from what we do in discussing the stuff we do here.

So while I accept and acknowledge that you say you disagree with me...I must respectfully disagree with you.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

a2k's philosophy bench is the clown car of benches. 25 people are trying to sit on a bench that actually seats 3 people comfortably.

2 Replies

@tsarstepan,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/stevetheq/clowncar_zpsf4159fd0.jpg

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

Quote:

a2k's philosophy bench is the clown car of benches. 25 people are trying to sit on a bench that actually seats 3 people comfortably.

Does that mean there are too few benches, or too many philosophers? :-)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not know if what I think of as "the real world" actually IS what I suppose it to be. The non-dualists, for instance, MAY BE correct. The people who suspect that the entire of what we "collectively" call the "real world" is actually just an illusion MAY BE correct.

If anyone were to introduce all of this into their regular conversations in everyday life...that person would be considered a candidate for the funny farm.

The people who believe that the world is an illusion ARE good candidates for the funny farm. Even if they start as mentally sane, that very idea is likely to make them totally cuckoo after a short while. There's no firewall between life and philosophy.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I do not know if what I think of as "the real world" actually IS what I suppose it to be. The non-dualists, for instance, MAY BE correct. The people who suspect that the entire of what we "collectively" call the "real world" is actually just an illusion MAY BE correct.

If anyone were to introduce all of this into their regular conversations in everyday life...that person would be considered a candidate for the funny farm.

The people who believe that the world is an illusion ARE good candidates for the funny farm. Even if they start as mentally sane, that very idea is likely to make them totally cuckoo after a short while. There's no firewall between life and philosophy.

That's not the question in play, Olivier.

The issue is whether those of us who participate in discussions in a philosophy forum treat the word "know" different when in the forum...and when in casual conversation out in everyday life.

I know I do.

I have heard others here suggest they do.

But apparently you are going to insist that it cannot be...or whatever it is you are insisting.

Go for it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Jeesus you're thick... What do you care so much about the use of one single word ("know")? Is that your fetish word or something?

All I am saying is that philosophy and philosophy discussions are part of real life, deal with issues that are important to our lives, and can be conducted using the same language which we use in the rest of our lives. Do you agree or disagree?

It's fine if you disagree. No need to make huge issue out of it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
a2k's philosophy bench is the clown car of benches. 25 people are trying to sit on a bench that actually seats 3 people comfortably.

Does that mean there are too few benches, or too many philosophers? :-)

Which one is the ... half glass is empty option? Wink

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

What would A2K philosophers say while sitting on a bench?

I know Genghis Khan but Emmanuel Kant.
No you don't.
Yes I do.
No you don't, that's not knowledge.
Yes it is, you know nothing of knowledge.
Yeah well your epistemological propositions are as square as Eulerian circles.
Pity you're as venereous as the Venn Diagram that they come in uppance.
Oh shut up .
No you stfu.
You know what I know.
No I don't.
Yes I do.
What.
Beg your pardon.
Hugs.
Hugs.
Same time tomorrow.
Can't wait, cya.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg/220px-Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

0 Replies

As to the Bench question, I've been concentrating too hard on the word bench and not quite enough on the word know in all its glory.

I can't arrange this all artistically since I'm a dope about coding, but you can just imagine how to play with this knowing business ~~~~~

Know KNOW, not KNOW or Know - not without fear of floundering how to really KNOW how to say NO NO Nietzsche.

Well, that didn't work, but it was fun. Maybe we need to set up some able2KNOW tee shirts..

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Jeesus you're thick... What do you care so much about the use of one single word ("know")? Is that your fetish word or something?

All I am saying is that philosophy and philosophy discussions are part of real life, deal with issues that are important to our lives, and can be conducted using the same language which we use in the rest of our lives. Do you agree or disagree?

It's fine if you disagree. No need to make huge issue out of it.

Actually, I'm not...and you are.

You were the one who questioned what I said.

The language I use on the golf course...especially after missing a short putt...is not the same language I use when at a family dinner.

Nothing "wrong" with that at all...and nothing that need be questioned.

When I wrote that I use the word "know" differently in everyday conversation than I do in a discussion in a philosophy forum...it was a throw away line.

YOU MADE IT SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU ACTUALLY STARTED A NEW THREAD ABOUT IT...and now you are scolding me for making a big thing about it?????

By the way...I am not "thick" at all...I am persistent.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:
All I am saying is that philosophy and philosophy discussions are part of real life, deal with issues that are important to our lives, and can be conducted using the same language which we use in the rest of our lives. Do you agree or disagree?

It's fine if you disagree. No need to make huge issue out of it.

Actually, I'm not...and you are.

You mean you agree with me that it is unwise to decouple life and philosophy? Good then, there's no major disagreement left to discuss.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:
All I am saying is that philosophy and philosophy discussions are part of real life, deal with issues that are important to our lives, and can be conducted using the same language which we use in the rest of our lives. Do you agree or disagree?

It's fine if you disagree. No need to make huge issue out of it.

Actually, I'm not...and you are.

You mean you agree with me that it is unwise to decouple life and philosophy? Good then, there's no major disagreement left to discuss.

No...I mean that YOU are the one making a huge issue out of it...even though you are accusing me of making a huge issue out of it.

I suspect you knew that...but nice try. You still do not get the cigar!

1 Reply

Well, now we know.

Maybe not as it is used in the philosophy department, but still, we are informed and more aware.

Joe(that's a good thing)Nation

0 Replies

Why is there so much shouting all of a sudden?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

We are moving past the schoolyard names, poopyhead, and trying to see if we SCREAM if anyone understands sooner.

JOE(so far, results seem mixed)NATION

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

No...I mean that YOU are the one making a huge issue out of it...even though you are accusing me of making a huge issue out of it.

I am not, really. I just find funny the idea of 2 A2K philosophers devising on a bench about whether they are able to know anything or not...

Let's go back to that. What would you say to yourself if you were sitting on such a bench?

A So-fake-it-is-true Interview of Frank Apisa by Himself
A bench in Central Park, early afternoon. Birds chipping...

Frank: Frank, do you sometime wonder if everything around us is real? Like, what if the information carried by our senses was just one giant computer simulation?

Frank: You mean like in the Matrix?

F: Exactly!

F: Wait, are you serious?

F: Well, you know (or not), I was speaking philosophically. How do you know, or not know, really?

F: Ah ok, philosophically I agree. We cannot be certain of anything concerning ultimate reality. But for a moment, I thought you were serious... Pfffewitt...

F: What then?

F: Well, if you are SERIOUSLY saying we're in the Matrix, you're ready for the funny farm!

F: No no... It's all philosophical. Musing with ones wise balls so to speak. Don't worry, we aren't taking Kung-Fu lessons quite yet...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
No...I mean that YOU are the one making a huge issue out of it...even though you are accusing me of making a huge issue out of it.

I am not, really.

Yeah...you are!

You actually started a thread about it.

So why not at least pretend you are ethical...and acknowledge that you are?

Quote:

I just find funny the idea of 2 A2K philosophers devising on a bench about whether they are able to know anything or not...

That's not what was being done. We were discussing the fact that I treat the word "know" differently when discussing issues in an Internet forum...than when in casual everyday conversation.

I think most people do.

Quote:

Let's go back to that. What would you say to yourself if you were sitting on such a bench?

"Wow...what a wonderful day. I know I am happy I am alive and able to sit on a bench here in the park...and enjoy the world and all it has to offer."

Quote:

A So-fake-it-is-true Interview of Frank Apisa by Himself
A bench in Central Park, early afternoon. Birds chipping...

Frank: Frank, do you sometime wonder if everything around us is real? Like, what if the information carried by our senses was just one giant computer simulation?

Frank: You mean like in the Matrix?

F: Exactly!

F: Wait, are you serious?

F: Well, you know (or not), I was speaking philosophically. How do you know, or not know, really?

F: Ah ok, philosophically I agree. We cannot be certain of anything concerning ultimate reality. But for a moment, I thought you were serious... Pfffewitt...

F: What then?

F: Well, if you are SERIOUSLY saying we're in the Matrix, you're ready for the funny farm!

F: No no... It's all philosophical. Musing with ones wise balls so to speak. Don't worry, we aren't taking Kung-Fu lessons quite yet...

I have no idea of what you were trying to portray here, Olivier, so I will make a guess that it is simply your way of trying to evade the fact that you are frantic to show me to be unreasonable or wrong when I say that I treat the word "know" differently when using it in everyday conversation...and when I am using it in a discussion of philosophy.

Good luck with that! Wink

You'd do much better to quit while you are behind.

1 Reply

What would A2K philosophers say while sitting on a bench?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know