Could there possibly be an edge to existence itself.

@fresco,

Quote:

The observer does not construct...language ( as the covert presence of society) constructs.

The usual reification of language by you. Where did the language come from? Wait, let me guess: it was just kinda wandering around the planet, waiting for some type of creature to come along and discover it, that it?

Quote:

Read Heidegger

Heh. I wouldn't read that Nazi-ass kraut if ya paid me a dollar a word to do it. Better off watchin paint dry, or some **** like that, eh?

0 Replies

These guys keep throwing away the baby with the bath water and they don't get it...

..."subjects", "society", "constructs", even "language" they all are subject to the same rules as they all are concepts...

...it simply there is nothing to talk about as soon as you drop foundation...Reality IS a given, put up and shut up !

...what "Phenomenology" is there to debate without foundations ? Are people nuts ??? I mean seriously ?
*bangs head against the wall with frustration*

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

people who have indeed denigrate the importance of Philosophy in the eyes of other Sciences because of this kind of bullshit

And of all the crap that tries to pass itself off as "philosophy" this bullshit is the worst, eh?:

Quote:

linguistic analysis, noun: a 20th-century philosophical movement inspired by Ludwig Wittgenstein and marked by close attention paid to the way words are used in order to clarify concepts and to eliminate confusions arising from mystifying preconceptions about language.

1 Reply

@layman,

That's the problem...outsiders immediately tend to think the whole of Philosophy boils down to these guys...these guys are the worst enemies of Philosophy by definition !

This is not healthy scepticism not even pragmatism this is nihilism of the worst kind and funny enough self contradictory, because it imposes its own truth about nothing being true...Its a complete laugh beginning to end...

...what burdens me is that they contaminate countless confused young souls and are allowed teaching in Academic circles...a sight of the times we live in where democracy of opinion substituted reason in Universities all over the world.

I rather put up with ultra specialized everything else ignoramus scientists then with these guys...fair enough at least in their field they produce.

1 Reply

Samuel Johnson was a bright guy who knew a shitload of words, but he didn't just spew them out in some random fashion. He used them for a purpose. For example:

Johnson (who was a fat mofo who didn't bathe often) got on a coach one day and plopped his fat ass down next to some little girl.

The girl said: " Mister, you smell!"

Johnson replied: "No, little girl, YOU smell.

Me, I stink."

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I rather put up with ultra specialized everything else ignoramus scientists then with these guys

Yeah, philosophical "experts" prove this more than anyone, I figure:

Quote:

“Expert (specialist): Someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.”

1 Reply

@layman,

Most of the really good philosophers were scientists, and I can't recall a top scientist who wasn't at heart a philosopher even without knowing...unfortunately not most of the scientists are tailed for Philosophy...the majority does menial work in the labs...sometimes they hit jackpot as a team but most are regular Joes when it comes to thinking skills...they just follow the scientific method and that is good enough to produce. So there is a lot of confusion around on what a scientist really is...they are overrated as far as general knowledge is concerned. They are nothing like Leonardo da Vinci or the renaissance Wiseman scholar.

Nonetheless rather have a thousand of those then ten of these "philosophers"...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

... most are regular Joes when it comes to thinking skills...

Yeah, I agree. And even some high-profile theoretical scientists seem very naïve, philosophically speaking. It often doesn't even occur to them that they have a philosophy, a metaphysical/onotological set of convictions, such as mechanistic, reductionistic materialism. They just think it's obvious and indisputable that what they believe along those lines is "true."

A scientific education is often long on math and rote memorization, and short on independent analysis. Most of them just want to "get the right answer." They are perfect foils for indoctrination, too.

2 Replies

@layman,

Fully agree...in both sides its a mess...but truth be told at least in hard sciences they produce something...humanities are totally sold to the devil...and in the totally dysfunctional world we live in we need proper science in humanities more then ever...oh dear "god" have mercy...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I see you are still in the bar.
As a some time ago published peer reviewed scientist I note your remarks with with a good deal of amusement.
BTW Wittgenstein started out as an aeronautical engineer. He was also an accomplished architect and surprisingly (to me at least) a religious believer. He gave away the millions he inherited, drove war ambulances, and taught primary school.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Wittgenstein....

You forgot to mention that he was run out of several towns for abusing young boys, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Source?
I know about "beating" but not sexual abuse.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Funny...I love bars, cafes, joints, and good talk...the best ideas always were born there...and you know it...just go around Cambridge, MIT, or whatever place you love the most. Go to the bar...

You keep at authoritarianism...I don't blame you. You are a 70's dinosaur and it shows...I am sure as person you are a nice guy...we all are nice guys...

...you should go to the bar more often maybe just maybe you learn something useful for a change !

1 Reply

@fresco,

I didn't say the abuse was sexual (although it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it was). He was also the type to threaten people (such as Karl Popper) with a fireplace poker if they didn't agree with him that all philosophical questions were mere matters of language.

The perv was suspect, through and through.

Just what you'd expect from a damn solipsist, ya know?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

...just go around Cambridge, MIT, or whatever

I used to hang around MIT quite a bit. I was there for the sole purpose of busting a cap in Chomsky's sorry ass. But he was never there. He was always off somewhere charging huge fees to give a lecture, so I finally gave up.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Yeah, I agree. And even some high-profile theoretical scientists seem very naïve, philosophically speaking. It often doesn't even occur to them that they have a philosophy, a metaphysical/onotological set of convictions, such as mechanistic, reductionistic materialism. They just think it's obvious and indisputable that what they believe along those lines is "true."

I 'm wonder if those who think like fresco...I wonder if they were ever weaned off their mother's milk. Sometime after two or three of age we grow up. We realize that in playing peek-a-boo that putting our hands in front of our eves, closing them, doesn't mean that the other person in the room can't see us.

Maybe these philosophers never got over got over their state of denials; their peek-a- boo stage?

2 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

We realize that in playing peek-a-boo that putting our hands in front of our eves, closing them, doesn't mean that the other person in the room can't see us. Maybe these philosophers never got over got over their state of denials; their peek-a- boo stage?

That's an interesting proposition, Arg. I never thought of it that way. But, yeah, it sure seems like poor Fresco is convinced he can't be spotted, now that ya mention it.

1 Reply

@layman,

Aaah lovely ! The English name is peek-a-boo...I thought about that often when I read Fresco but I didn't knew the English word for the baby game.

0 Replies

Oh, he's been spotted...and spotted by quite a few.

Fact is, though, that my contention with him is not that he is wrong...but that he insists he has to be right.

The REALITY MAY BE that which the solipsists suggest (I personally do not see solipsism as an insult) and it MAY BE that which the "naive realists" suggest. It MAY BE something in between...or MAY BE something so far outside that box that humans cannot possibly fathom it.

Without piling on (I'll avoid that also, Layman)...Fresco's problem is that he now takes as an article of his faith that his (and the army of authorities upon whom he relies) have it absolutely correct...and anything else is simply in error.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Naah Frank our, mine problem with Fresco is not just that he might be, seems to be, a solipsist...its the contradictions of his own half brewed ideas...I would tolerate any crazy ideas as far fetched they might be but not logical contradictions...he has plenty of those.

If indeed as you so well put it reality by definition refers to what is the case whatever we might know or not know then there is an objective reality with or without solipsism...

...in fact extreme realism and solipsism are very similar when you start wondering what the "I" amounts to...

0 Replies

Could there possibly be an edge to existence itself.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know