3
   

What makes Us, Us?

 
 
Etude
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Oct, 2010 01:14 pm
@HexHammer,
oh dear.
i merely expressed everything fundamentally, ie utilising the basics to help you grasp the theory. you should agree, because the way you intepreted your ideas has to have some sort of origin, in addition the views you showed in the thread are results of reflection and study from the fundamentals.
unless, ofcourse, you obliviously skipped the essentials and just ingested all the interesting data you found in the media without having properly digested the information.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Oct, 2010 06:44 pm
@Etude,
Etude wrote:

oh dear.
i merely expressed everything fundamentally, ie utilising the basics to help you grasp the theory. you should agree, because the way you intepreted your ideas has to have some sort of origin, in addition the views you showed in the thread are results of reflection and study from the fundamentals.
unless, ofcourse, you obliviously skipped the essentials and just ingested all the interesting data you found in the media without having properly digested the information.
Yearh ..you defently like to delude youself with pretty rethorics. I'm sorry, but it seems you don't really have a clue what you are talking about.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Oct, 2010 07:16 pm
@HexHammer,
Even I the least educated among you, I am at a aaahhhh. It does apear that Hex is waaaay more informed than most of us!
If he realy cares he needs to explain himself and I do not see this happening as he would rather put people down instead.
Even so I would not give up on people like this but I do have to admit that I would spend less time trying to convey a concept when they are in this frame of mind.
Not that I understand all things but because he shows very little effort in trying to understnd other point of views other than his own! This sure seems like a ocpd type of mind set to me!
0 Replies
 
Etude
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 06:34 am
@HexHammer,
it feels like talking to a wall here. anyway. you have probably concretized all those amazing theories of yours, of others in you head, so it's futile for me, or anyone to even explain their view on specific information since it will be subjected to your criticism. you will most likely reject their perspective unless they share the same qualities possessed in the brain as you. all in all you are reluctant to change, unwilling to put yourself in other peoples' shoes, and sort of an hypocrit in that you said i constantly delude myself with rhetorics which you also constantly delude yourself. not with rhetorics, but spineless facts.

at least my opinions have an universal effect
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 07:08 am
@Etude,
Spare me your pathetic bravado.

First off if someone would rave about being abducted by UFO's through the person's childhood, would you take that person serious and talk on his side of the fence? ..no? If you did, you would be an idiot.

Second, just because I don't get swayed by your poor argumentation, then you jump to conclusions.

Do come back when you have learned to fully argument for your views, and not sell me half baked bread.
Etude
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 09:34 am
@HexHammer,
okay, now you're just irrational. there is a margin for common sense, which is totally different for everybody, and ofcourse you would be an idiot if you took that person seriously.
you can't just blurt out trivial examples to make people look silly. honestly, how old are you?
my conclusions are based on what i've seen so far about you, i'm awefully sorry if i'm wrong. but a holistic study of you would have me read all your posts and discussions, which i'm not going to do.
as to the argument part, well... i merely work from the theory, with occasional opinions of my own. unlike you who works only with opinions, from what i've seen so far.
if i may test your psyche, answer this question: are television programs watched better with or without commercials?
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 11:31 am
@Etude,
You have only arguemnted with general terms, no solid facts what so ever. I however, have presented admissable facts that you so blatantly have ignored and tryed to make poor arguments against with empty rethorics.
Etude
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 01:07 pm
@HexHammer,
i've ignored them because they lacked conviction, at least post a weblink where i can see what you're talking about, or explain more thoroughly if possible. and you still haven't answered my question.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 09:58 pm
@Etude,
Etude wrote:

i've ignored them because they lacked conviction, at least post a weblink where i can see what you're talking about, or explain more thoroughly if possible. and you still haven't answered my question.
If my arguments really lacked conviction you would have said so then, but now you just making lame excuses, same with links.
0 Replies
 
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 10:47 am
@extra medium,
A thing is defined by its two elements, material difference within a form.
What we are, mind, is one of several environmental acquisition systems of a living organism. What makes anything what it is is determined by its definition. If you understand that a Set is determined in only one of two ways, enumeration and definition, you might be able to generalize Set, into Thing, and see that definition, and definition determines predication, or assertion and denial--the very basic sentence itself. So, is not form qua form, nor material qua material, but, as Aristotle pointed out, and as Plato pointed out, the combination of both. By definition also.
By definition, we as mind are that environmental acquisition system of a living organism which must acquire from things in the environment, forms to apply as human behavior that maintain and promote the life of the body.
Definition determines what we are.
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 12:26 pm
@NoOne phil,
The first expression I am aware of this was in Plato's Phaedo. What makes a thing a thing is because it participates in a form, ie. member of a class or set. This was part of the Two-Element Metaphysics which degenerated into Set Theory. However, it is simply based on the definition of a thing as being comprisded of its two elements, material difference in a form. These two elements divide a living organisms environmental acquisition systems between those that abstract material and those that abstract form from things in order to maintain and promote its life.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What makes Us, Us?
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/12/2022 at 08:36:41