Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you think? Is Life reality..or just an illusion?
I stumbled across this board that discussed the philosophy on earth and life and saw a board on Life and views on it. Check this out and discuss your views on life.
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/thrdid=32783-u-frmid=12

i dont know, maybe reality itself is an illusion, very few things that i know of are real.

All I can say about this is somebody has watched the Matrix or the Truman Show way too many times for their own good.

Never seen The Matrix and Never Heard Of The Truman Show.

The Matrix sucks, teh truman show does a little less but still both say there is a reality just not obvious to some of the people in the movie.

i wasnt talking about you.




the truman show sucked. i thought it was rather stupid.
and the matrix.
the first one was okay. but the others just. no. sucked.

it depends how u define realityto me to me my computer is key board is real but to you thinking about my key board it is just an illuslin made by your mind thnking about it

It doesn't matter. People can get away with claiming that life is an illusion because there's no actual way to test such a claim, short of dying. But for all that it might seem profound to some, it's really supremely unimportant, in that if life is an illusion, it doesn't actually change anything. You still have to live life as if it was real, unless you want to get horribly maimed by an "illusionary" truck or something.

People who are afraid to accept the realities of life are often the same ones who hide because they are afraid to experience them.

"All I can say about this is somebody has watched the Matrix or the Truman Show way too many times for their own good."

Maybe you just haven't watched them enough.

If everyone saw and perceived completely different realities to one another, we would never know.

For example: If I'm standing in a field with Kharma, my reality and my brain could be telling me "You're in a field with Kharma." Kharma might be standing in the middle of a City with me at that same time. The only reason we wouldn't be able to tell each other the differences is because our brains can only perceive things in the way that we see them or the way that we are supposed to see them. If you tell me that a street sign is red, how do I know that it's really not some other colour and the only reason I can hear you saying that it's red is because that's the only way I can perceive it?

-AC

i'd be drawn to say life's an illusion, as most of the time nothing seems real... as if we're in someone's imagination. it's kinda hard to explain , but i often get the feeling that when life's going good, then someone changes it so everything f*cks up... probably sounds a bit far-fetched to some people...

All aspects of life are constantly changing processes, pleasant as well as unpleasant. Change is a constant part of everyday life.

"Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better."
- King Whitney, Jr. -

Is change scary? Yes and no. Depends on your perspective.

I'd like to take this chance to tell everyone that I am an Agent.

-AC

One reality can be an illusion for someone else, and one illusion can be a reality for another person. The problem is that when you say, for instance, life is an illusion, then you are in contradiction, because to say that everything is an illusion requires that you know what reality is in order to contrast the two. Thus, life must be a reality. You can only know illusion if you also know reality - it's a logical condition.

*nods*
We all have different senses, different brains and different conscious minds. Reality is everything we experience and what we experience is different for everybody. We all create our own perception of a collective created energy that forms our environment or surroundings.
There can be no illusion without reality.

If you say reality is everything we experience, then for an insane person his insanity affected perception is his reality, right? But, now how do we distinguish between a real and an unreal experience, or is all experience real? All experience must be real as all experiences have to come from somewhere - they cannot come from un-reality. Thus it follows that reality and illusion is the same thing - all illusion is real, because illusion comes from experience and experience is something real. Am I thinking straight here?

A person' s perception cannot be shared with anybody else except through communication. Communication is fallible, subject to exaggeration, falsification and misinterpretation. The reality that we are capable of perceiving is provided by our senses and our logic. We should strive to consider conventional physical explanations before jumping to hypotheses for which we have no basis.
The application of logic may be necessary to determine which perceptions you can trust. How do you distinguish hallucinations from real perceptions? How do you know if your senses fool you or if your observations are real? The difference between real perceptions and hallucinations is that you can repeat and reproduce results from real perceptions but not from hallucinations.

Ok, but what if you hallucinate and imagine that you are in fact reproducing an experience. For instance, schezophrenics are able to reproduce their hallucinations. Isn't there something more reliable than mere reproduction of experiences/perceptions? I accept the fact that in order to know an illusion requires knowledge of reality, BUT if a previously normal individual suddenly falls utterly insane, would he/she be able to recognoize the illusion? Isn't the definition of madness: "a person who is unable to distinguish between reality and fiction."? If so, how can anyone be absolutely sure he/she is still in a sane state of mind?

They themselves are indeed lost in a world in which they can no longer make the distinction between reality and illusion. However, we can.

Yes, but when do you know that you havn't turned mad yet? Because if you are absolutely mad, you wouldn't know it. This poses a serious epistemological problem concerning validity, don't you think?

My surroundings will be the first to interfere when I start loosing my grip on reality.

Ok, but how will you know for sure that you are not merely imagining an interference of your surroundings? Or, how can you be absolutely sure you are not imaginning everything right now? If one is inside one's own reality, everything makes sense inside of that 'reality'. Even if one doesn't go mad in an instant, but rather that it's a gradual process, how do you know you haven't already gone through that process of going mad and now have no memory of that?

Wow, after going through this forum my head officially hurts. I don't believe life is an "illusion" in so many words.

Then welcome into my illusionary world chimera.

Victory! I see you have given up the argument. In other words, I assume you and I have proven by virtue of you not being able to give an irrefutable argument for the existence of a distinction between reality and illusion.

I live in my own little world, but that's ok, they knew me here!
Mel Gibson visits. Conspiracy Theory......

This is not a battle!

I still stand with what I said earlier. The difference between real perceptions and hallucinations is that you can repeat and reproduce results from real perceptions but not from hallucinations.

In psychiatry the term illusion refers to a specific form of sensory distortion. For example, hearing voices which arise only from the sound of running water. One still needs something out of reality to trigger the illusion.

Still you couldn't proove your argument with logic!? Your above reference to science prooves nothing - look at our earlier arguments - you couldn't proove anything, in the end you just gave in by saying something like welcome to your world of chimera bla bla...

You couldn' t prove anything either. If the life I' ve lived so far is an illusion then I must have a very vivid imagination. All my surroundings would be the product of my imagination, including you, the members, this whole forum, the world.
If my life is an illusion then it is certainly not my illusion. My so called illusionary would look totally different then the one which I' m supposed to live in now.

I said the following: "Ok, but how will you know for sure that you are not merely imagining an interference of your surroundings? Or, how can you be absolutely sure you are not imaginning everything right now? If one is inside one's own reality, everything makes sense inside of that 'reality'. Even if one doesn't go mad in an instant, but rather that it's a gradual process, how do you know you haven't already gone through that process of going mad and now have no memory of that? "

That is proof that you would definately not be able to know if you are indeed insane or not.

Moreover, illusions and hallucinations are reproducable as well. Insane people experience the exact same situations over and over again.

Storm, just walk away. He'll never give up and continue to ramble.



How appropriate that you were the one to say that Philo.

Life is not an illusion, you are born, you live, you die. Some folks make a good life for themselves, some chicken out and try to explain away their crappy life. The only illusions are the one's that some really sad or lonely people convince themselves to see and believe in order to make their lives tolerable.

Then of course there's Siefreid & Roy, David Blane and David Copperfield, there are some cool illusions there too.

So you're telling me I'm not just an illusion? That I'm not just imaginning the tragedy of life? That makes it all worse, 'cause now everything is real. David Copperfield is not just an illusionist, but a double-illusionist.

head butt a stone and tell me if you are imagine the pain or if its real

Whether you are imaginning something or not, sensation is always the same - it's experience.

fantasize about hitingt your head on a rock and hit your head on the rock, then come back and tell me if the sensation is equal

fantasizing and illusion is not the same.

ok illusionate your head being hit by a rock and let your head be hit by a rock and se if the sensation is the same

I cannot willfully illusionate.

I think for many life isn't so much an illusion as it is a delusion

Only the idiot can be deluded.

stop braging

Only an idiot can be deluded. So a person suffering from Megalomania is by your definition an idiot?

A hallucination is a false sensory perception in the absence of an external stimulus, as distinct from an illusion, which is a misperception of an external stimulus.

And what I said is different from what you say:

How do you know you aren't merely imaginning external stimuli? What proof do you have of the existence of external stimuli? The point is that if you are insane you will not be aware of it. And even if you do feel aware of your insanity or sanity, you may still be imaginning it. An insane person feels just as sane to himself as a sane person. The problem is that you cannot proove to yourself whether you are insane or not.

That scares me a little... I just pray that I am not insane...
Can you explain to me in detail, what really is insanity, because I am getting confuse, as those who are insane thinks that they are right, that normal people can't see the truth... that happens a lot to geniuses and normal people... so does this mean that geniuses thinks that normal people are insane??
hmm....

Indeed an interseting topic: sanity/insanity. You don't have to be scared of not knowing whether you are sane or insane, because an insane person feels sane, the same as a sane person. I do think that geniuses think normal people are insane and normal people think geniuses are insane. Sanity and insanity is the same - you can never know for sure in what condition you are - how do you prove that?

Insanity is usually determined by acts committed.

People claim murderers are insane when the correct way of saying it is that they cannot distinguish between extreme acts. They see no difference because they lack any emotional connection.

It's not anything to do with geniuses thinking normal people are insane or vice versa, that's complete rubbish. I don't think "normal" people or "geniuses" are insane. I'm sure many others don't either.

-AC

extreme acts is a relative concept - how do you define it? Where do you draw the line between extreme and ordinary?

for sanity/insanity you could seek the opinion of a certified professional in that field of treatment (if you are indeed puzzled on your status.. which Im not quite sure why that would be).... They are profoundly methodical on spotting a fake as well

as for wondering whether life is reality or illusion.. it can only be an opinionated answer.. so my opinion is that this is reality.. simply because I can go somewhere and ask someone what they did 3 days ago.. wait 3 years and ask that person what they told me on said day, and the information would be consistent.. if this was an illusory or hallucinogenic state.. the information would not hold consistency.

thats was a pretty good reply SaTsuJiN

SaTsuJiN, that's no good answer - an insane person such as a schezophrenic can imagine seeing a psychiatrist and can also have consistently the same hallucinations and 'unreal' experience of life for many years - such as that guy...Ford I think, in the film a Beautiful Mind.

"extreme acts is a relative concept - how do you define it? Where do you draw the line between extreme and ordinary?"

Extreme acts ARE a relative concept is what I think you meant.

Secondly, smashing someone's head in with a hammer for....parking in your space, is extreme. To someone who does that, it's more often than not, viewed as a normal act. Coz they don't distinguish between normal and extreme as a result of having no emotional registering of the acts they commit.

-AC

the beautiful mind is a perfect example.. the inconsistency with that particular hallucination.. was that the people involved never aged... he was 22.. the girl was 12.. he was 26.. the girl was 12.. his wife knew something was wrong.. and thats all that needed to happen.. he sought help.. and eventually learned to ignore them.. oh and by the way.. even after he learned to ignore them (which he was like around age 70ish).. the girl was still 12

extreme acts IS a relative concept (you idiot) - the 'is' refer to the word 'concept' in the sentence, which is singular - if I said: extreme acts IS relative concepts - then it should've read 'ARE' instead of 'IS' . In other words, its either "Extreme acts IS a relative concept" OR "Extreme acts ARE relative concepts". I just caught you failing grammar! haha! Ask any language teacher about the sentence and you'll see I'm right.

Anyway, "Secondly, smashing someone's head in with a hammer for....parking in your space, is extreme. To someone who does that, it's more often than not, viewed as a normal act. Coz they don't distinguish between normal and extreme as a result of having no emotional registering of the acts they commit." this still doesn't proove the difference or indeed the existence of a difference between extreme and ordinary/normal.

"extreme acts IS a relative concept (you idiot) - the 'is' refer to the word 'concept' in the sentence, which is singular - if I said: extreme acts IS relative concepts - then it should've read 'ARE' instead of 'IS' . In other words, its either "Extreme acts IS a relative concept" OR "Extreme acts ARE relative concepts". I just caught you failing grammar! haha! Ask any language teacher about the sentence and you'll see I'm right."

Extreme acts is a relative concept? Extreme acts ARE a relative concept coz the concept refers to the plural. The concept isn't what's in question, the acts are. Therefore they are what's referred to. An extreme acts is a relative concept? OR An extreme ACT is a relative concept? The latter is correct. For a genius you sure do not know how to distinguish between plural and singular.

"this still doesn't proove the difference or indeed the existence of a difference between extreme and ordinary/normal."

One O, just one.

Yes it does, because the difference between EXTREME acts and NORMAL acts differ for someone of an "insane" mind.

-AC

You still didn't proooove anything. Really, what are you trying to do? It really looks like you're struggling. Oh, and your singular/plural analyses is still flawed - I suggest asking a language professional.

"Really, what are you trying to do? It really looks like you're struggling. Oh, and your singular/plural analyses is still flawed - I suggest asking a language professional."

What am I trying to do? Appears you've hit a brick wall. I'm not struggling, nor is my singular/plural analysIs flawed. Sort out your spelling, punctuation and sentence formation before you delve into singulars and plurals. I won't kick a dead corpse. So I'll let you continue your fantastical, sensationalistic life on this philosophy forum Mr. Professor.

-AC

Well, you sure enjoy arguing with a dead corpse. By the way, 'dead corpse' is overkill - a corpse implies something that is dead, you don't have to say dead corpse - you can just say corpse - a corpse is dead. hahahahaha!

Yeah they tend to make more sense than philosophy professors that never were.

-AC

Thanks for the compliment.

That's that self-narcisism thing I mentioned.

You need to just take everything as a compliment.

Whatever though. I'm sure some kids wanna praise your poetry in the Prose forum somewhere.

-AC

What are you saying? Did you look at my poems? Am I sensing jealousy?

I don't get jealous of other people's writing. If you have a talent, good for you.

I write poems myself but the difference between us is that I write for me, as an outlet. I don't write them to plaster them on KMC and go "I'm special. How can I not be special if everyone in KMC Prose & Poetry is praising me?"

You might be sensing jealousy. They say that it starts with the creator.

-AC

I also write poems as an outlet, especially when I'm depressed.

Philo, you never responded to my thought that if "only an idiot can be deluded" then a person suffering from Megalomania is by your definition an idiot?

That's exactly consistency - not ageing, you see, to him it made sense - it was his reality. Still, he was still imaginning them - so he couldn't see the difference between reality and fiction. He could never be sure if he was ever sane or insane.

Figure it out - think about the word: Megalomania - I also meant that only an idiot can be deluded by other people.

So if one deludes himself (a Megalomaniac) they are not an idiot?

Such a person might or might not be an idiot, who knows? Napoleon was an example of a highly intelligent megalomaniac.

He can' t answer the question unprejudiced KharmaDog since he' s suffering form megalomania himself. This is one of the first times he has to admit that he doesn' t know. He can' t give an answer that could be at his disadvantage.

You're right, Storm, but I think I gave a pretty objective answer, right?

I' m convinced of it that if this wasn' t about megalomania, your answer would have been positive.

Why? megalomania is not indicative of idiocy.

Make up your mind. You' re switching from might or might not be to not.

I'm not switching - megalomania is not indicative of idiocy still means that might or might not applies. I said that a person with megalomania might or might not be an idiot, that's not contradictive to saying megalomania is not indicative of idiocy - can't you think logically?

Megalomania is a psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence. To look at oneself in that light may not make one an idiot. But such a lack of rational thought would preclude them from being considered a genius wouldn't it?

A megalomaniac is deluding him/herself.

I have a word for it and if your all nice I share it with you all

I don't think so - Van Gogh was schezophrenic and suffered from a lot other disorders, many times he was completely irrational, but he still remains a genius as an artist, doesn't he? The same with Napoleon - he suffered from megalomania but was a brilliant tactician - arguably the best - maybe even genius?

Please share Finti

if you cant function normally you aint no genious, the toll of being so bloody sharp in one field is neglected in another so. Smart all around would maybe create a genious but its hard to find someone that is smart all around

No one can delude themselves, delusion is not by will - it's rather forced upon the deluded. Thus, a megalomaniac is not deluding himself, but suffers from the force of delusion - ouside of his will and control.

Most of the time the genius does not function normally, because of his peculiar abnormally sharp skill- normal people function normally, and they aint geniuses. Being very smart in one field can make you a genius.

So by what you say, "only an idiot can be deluded", ergo anyone deluded is an idiot. So whether a megalomaniac is deluding himself or not, by your earlier observation, we can conclude that since he suffers under a dellusion (no matter what the cause) he is an idiot.

well if being smart in one field and dumb in anohter equal up to not more than avarage

How is it forced upon the deluded?

As I stated before, I meant that only the idiot can be deluded by other people. In other words, only if one is deluded by other people can one be an idiot.

Aka twisted what you said completely so it doesn't apply to you.

-AC

No, your argument is faulty - an average person is not very smart in any field whatsoever. So, if someone is very smart in one field, he cannot be average.

Storm: "quote:
Originally posted by Philosophicus
No one can delude themselves, delusion is not by will - it's rather forced upon the deluded. Thus, a megalomaniac is not deluding himself, but suffers from the force of delusion - outside of his will and control.

How is it forced upon the deluded?"

"outside of his will and control" = forced......duh!

I' ll rephrase it

Give me an example. You in particular must know.

For example like me suffering from mental disorders - it's not by choice, but outside of my control.

I' ll rephrase it again. Give me an example of one of your delusions and explain me how it is forced upon you.

there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the
imagination of ourselves.

smart people are overrated, when it all comes down to it they aint all that smart after all, smart whithin a field yes overall no. What you do is underestimate the avarage, dont think yourself too highly above this cause you aint.

Firstly, when a person is extremely smart within a field, such as a composer, an artist, a philosopher, a performing artist, a scientist, he is considered to be a genius - why do you think they refer to people like Einstein, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Shakespear, Michelangelo, etc who were all just extremely talented in one field, as geniuses?

Secondly, the avarage cannot be underestimated - they are merely average - nothing more, nothing less...they have no exceptional talent in anything.

Thirdly, Who are you to say I'm not high above the average? My IQ tests suggest that I am indeed very high above the average - I've done mensa tests, Glia tests testing intelligence on the very high level and the Internatinal High IQ Society tests and scored in the category of 'genius' (141 +...my highest was 189) - I doubt whether an average person can achieve such scores.

Moreover, I don't think an average person has the ability to write the kind of poetry I write - my poetry contemplates the existential condition, has been published and received recognition by the acclaimed South African writer, Francois Bloemhof;and my philosophical writings are really not about simple matters - I analyse the ontology of being and self-conciousness on a very in depth level. At school my marks was very much above the avarage - I graduated from high school in the top ten. The average person, by the way, is not even remotely interested in philosophy.

Anyway, its merely your opinion that I'm not far above average. I think everyone in this forum is high above average - the average person don't think on a philosophical level.

What proof do you have that my intelligence is not above average anyway? I also think you are very intelligent and witty, I'm being totally sincere. So give me a reason why you think I should not think myself too highly above the average.

What don't you understand, Storm? When I suffer from a delusion, it is outside of my control, I don't choose to suffer from it, it is forced upon me in that sense - it acts on me without my consent, choice and without me being able to exercise control over it. It's not forced upon me by someone else, but it's a mental condition which I don't want to allow to rule me, but still it exercises its force on me. How much clearer do I have to make it?

the way you come off in your posts, braging about you being a genious an all, writing poetry dont make you a genious regardless of what feedback you get. You mention some composer and writers, and they did create good music and write good stories so what, people do that today too without being looked uppon as geniouses. That you have a creative skill doesnt mean you are a genious, cause some considered as an avarage intelligent person, that might not be too good with numbers and words can do magic with fixing stuff.

Finti, please - the fact that we have good writers today who are not seen as geniuses, doesn't mean they aren't - usually history judges that. Bragging about being a genius doesn't indicate I might not be one. You're right that the mere fact that I have a creative skill does not mean I'm a genius, but if I have an exceptional creative skill, that would mean I'm a genius, BUT history will judge that. And if I'm bragging about being a genius, it's not that I'm being absolutely serious, I'm the kind of person who like to stirr things, piss them off - who knows whether I am a genius or not? Nobody can know for sure. It also depends on what your definition of genius is - some people don't consider generally accepted geniuses as being genius at all - they have their reasons - they might be right or wrong.

yeah Shakespeare

I'm sorry, but Shakespear was an enormous genius of literature! You probably disagree because you don't understand his writing. He only wrote for those who can appreciate the complexity of the human character and for those with highly intelligent minds.

why is it when peole have a diffrent opinion about something it is always you probably dont understand.
It aint all that hard to understand, but he was nothing but a writer, influential yes but so what. He wrote stories and people still tries to complicate the meanings of the stories just as an attempt to be displayed as so bloody itelligent. Tell you what if you cant let a story be just what it is a story, then maybe it is your understanding that is flawed.
Had the same discussion with my literature teacher about both Shakespear and Ibsen. .....writers, good writers but never the less writers

He aint all that hard to understand? Well, explain to me his poem: "A Lover's Complaint".

you really didnt get what I said then, why dont people let the stuff written be just what it is, why does it always have to be "decheipered", cause unless someone talked to the writer and he said that what I worte aint actually what it means then..................

In a verbal exam in Norwegian literature I was asked about what Ibsen might have ment with a sentence in his play "A Doll`s House", my reply was just what Ibsen worte. The teacher said no thats not correct, to which I replied "How do you know exactly what Ibsen ment when he wrote what he did? You assume that he ment something else which can be right, I assume he ment just what he wrote and thats why he wrote it"

And still you fail in giving me an exact example of one of your delusions.

In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.

So, you thinking being a genius is forced upon you without your consent and choice.

I know what you mean, but really, I don't understand Shakespeare's poem I mentioned. I always argued with my idiotic english teacher about the same stuff you talk about. It's still a problem - the writer does mean something when he writes, but we as readers can interpret it in different ways. Still, if you say he meant just what he wrote, but you don't have a clue what he wrote, then that's still a problem.

But then again, I can say the same about the stuff I wrote - I just meant what I wrote, if people don't understand it, then I can't deceipher it - as you say.

Actually Shakespeare wrote for the common man and many of his writings were considered to bawdy for the elite thinkers of the day.

The elite thinkers of the day merely didn't recognize his genius. Many geniuses only live posthumously.

God! you're annoying. Why do you always pull out a dictionary definition, or a manual, or a scientific reference to try and prove your point? Can't you think for yourself? I think you're just criticising me because you can't come up with your own ideas...so now you're seeking flaws in mine.
Be fair, make a statement and then stand to be criticised yourself!

You say: "So, you thinking being a genius is forced upon you without your consent and choice." Sorry Storm, that's your pathetic opinion which doesn't matter to me.

What storm does is completley fair. By pulling "out a dictionary definition, or a manual, or a scientific reference" to try and prove her point she is not showing lack of an ability to think for hesrelf. She is trying to make you take responsibility for the words or phrases that you use.

I have done it on many occasions where people use a word in an improper context or when people actully look like they have no idea what they are talking about.

By saying, "So, you thinking being a genius is forced upon you without your consent and choice." She is just extrapolating on your explanations. If you can't take it then don't throw it out there. Do you dismiss her because she challenges you? Don't dismiss others arguements so easily, cause your opinion could mean just as little to others as hers does to you. You are acting not like a genius, but a defensive close minded fool.

"One should not be intimidated, but gain interest in it" This is my own quote on learning....

I am not intimidated by learning Peter, and I don't see how you came to that conclusion from that quote.

Knowledge is a quest, not a game.

Whatever, KharmaDog, knowledge is mere opinion.

then your genius is based on opinon and your expression of that opinon, nothing else.

"The truth (knowledge) can be viewed from different levels of familiarity" I think opinions fit in perfectly here...

opinions can be manipulated

And your opinion of me is also just that - SO what's your point?

peter: "The truth (knowledge) can be viewed from different levels of familiarity" I think opinions fit in perfectly here..."

Very true.

finti - "opinions can be manipulated" - what's your point?

if I want your opinion I`ll give it to you

what i aiming at is that many have the opinion of their parents eg when voting, so it aint personal but a shared opinion because it feels safe

"if I want your opinion I`ll give it to you"

See, I told you philosophy wasn't about ideas etc....

it was an example of that opinions can be manipulated.

do as me or I kick your ass kind of way

"it was an example of that opinions can be manipulated.

do as me or I kick your ass kind of way"

Yeah, like politicians and dictators do. The common man's opinions are created by politicians and other leaders.

Im a common man and I create my opinions out of what I hear have learnt or agree with, but it is me who deceides uppon what opinion I have on matters not others

Then you're not a common man - the common man is the real average dude in the streets.

There are no "real average dudes" in the streets. That what people think to raise themselves above the masses. everyone is unique. Yes many people hold the same beliefs, but not for all the same reasons.

Omg
You' ll have to do better than that. It' s getting tiresome and repetitive.

Never thought you' d have such difficulties with providing a simple example.

You' re "supposed" to be "intelligent" enough to find out why I refer to official works.

Official works? That's mere opinion. Do you suppose 'official' means absolute?

Were's your original idea or statement, you're still just criticising me. You're the repetitive one, because you're so unoriginal and uncreative - so predictable.

Philo, you are the repetitive and predictable one. Can you not see that?

dfmgsdmnflgnsed sdfgnsd g;n sd;saodfha;sdnf;oasdf aslkdnfaoisd'n fasd
sdnfsndlfsdnl sdjfisadjifasjdfsdfjasdfasd 39512341234
21341234 jkopjkp23491- m
werfqwefqwefqw9e-0923=41234123
wefwqefwqef9-09-09-=09=21094=-1204=23412341234
werfwefwdfsdfsdf


Repetititititititive???? don't think so.

Only from a child one can expect such answers.

Storm, I think you're just jealous of me, because you haven't come up with one original philosophical statement yet.

Philo, you continually harp on what you perceive to be people's unoriginality. That is unoriginal of itself.

Many of your likes and beliefs are very cliche of the pseudo intellectual, but people don't comment because people don't care. Stop worrying about everyone else's originality, they will muster along in life quite well without your unwanted, unneeded and unenlightened criticisms.

You know what? it's quite arrogant and insulting when you call my philosophy pseudo-intellectual! Just because you don't understand it, or don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's pseudo intellectual. Oh, and people DO comment and do care - like you commented just now and many times before- ha! The fact that you comment on my ideas so frequently shows that it can't be that meaningless.

What I meant by unoriginality was that many members of this forum don't try to put out their own philosophy so that others can criticise them, instead they critisize mime...maybe out of jealousy....at least I made the effort to come up with my own original ideas, while others say nothing of their own, quote encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc.

not everyone find it necessary to have a philosophical idea, me I think it is a wast of time

I did not call your philosophy psuedo intellectual. I was talking about the general class of people known as pseudo intellectuals and I did not even include you in that category, I just said that your interests represent the classic pseudo intellectual and therefore could be deemed as unoriginal.

Before you wig out please make sure you understand the meaning of what someone is trying to say and don't always be so defensive.

Don't you realise what you are saying? In the one sentence you say:"I did not call your philosophy psuedo intellectual"; then you say:"did not even include you in that category, I just said that your interests represent the classic pseudo intellectual " -- you are contradicting yourself. In the one breath you say I'm not pseudo intellectual, but in the very next breath you say I am!?

You don't include me in the category but you say I represent them???What the hell?

Unoriginal? Prove to me which of my ideas are the same as those of others.

I'm very confused as to whether you think I am pseudo intellectual or not? Please make up your mind or be clearer.

If it's a waste of time to have a philosophical idea then why do you waste your time reading the philosophical ideas of others in this forum?

who said I read them

You ARE reading them, for instance you're commenting on philosophical ideas of mine, and others as I've seen. Merely by saying a philosophical idea is a waste of time, you must've read some philosophy to have come to such a conclusion.

It was a sure hour of sleep every lecture while in school

You did philosophy at school???

was part of the stuff we had to take first year in college, we had to take it but we didnt receive a grade in it . It was jsut mandatory, a ****ing bore

I can't make up my mind as I can not say for sure whether you are or not. However you have many common likes as the pseudo intellectual class of students at most universities. I could never fully comment on your personality for two reasons, one I don't know you, only the you you try to portray, and two, you have admitted to lying before (I'm a university professor) so I never know what to believe.

As for studying philosophy, I thought that everyone had to to get an undergraduate degree?

not on the first level, when you go to uni you have to if you take it. At college or secondary as we call it in Norway you just learn about basics and so called great thinkers, it is just as much history as philosophy

I took a couple of classes in University, the first because I had to the last few out of a general interest.

Do you even know what 'pseudo intellectual' means? It's still quite ARROGANT if you call my stuff 'pseudo intellectual', so you're effectively descending to my level of mentality - ha!

Anyway, it's your opinion. Some other people actually do understand my philosophy and don't call it 'pseudo intellectual'. Go look at the following forum: http://www.madphilosophers.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.cgi?board=general

This is what one member commented on me:
"Im going to re-read it in full this time instead of my speed reading that usually gets the easy point most people are making.

*finishes reading*

I like that, i'll throw you a compliment too, it's actually deep enough to read, at a time i was losing faith in the posters here."

And here's another:

"Philosophicus:

Your other eloquent post this morning and this one both are engaging and appreciated.

I'm sure you know Hegel far better than I. By coincidence (?) I was commenting on his Dialectic and more generally on historicism in the "Teleology" post on the "Fundamental Principles" thread. "

What's your point?

You still don't get what I am saying do you. It is not a personal attack and I was not talking about your philosophies.

My point is YOU are just as AROGANT as I am.

Whatever gets you through the day Philo.