so basically.. "If I don't deem you as equal (intelligent), your opinion is a pile of feces on the curb"? Thats a pretty biased statement, considering people who philosophise are usually open minded.
"Alpha Centauri - I happen to be a professor in Philosophy here in South Africa at the University of Riebeecks, I'm currently on vacation so I thought I'd check out some forums on the net."
Just out of curiosity - Do you insult your students (assuming you aren't blatantly lying about being a professor, which from what I've read seems very possible) who don't see things in the questionable and debatable way you often seem to?
You know, if you want to be taken seriously as a philosopher it isn't wise to comeback everything with the dimwitted "You're idiotic/ignorant because you don't agree with the pseudo, half assed, long winded philosophical shit stack I've been spewing about." Because that seems to be your leitmotif around here when you have no viable or reasonable argument to defend your ideas (which seems to be pretty much constant).
Insulting those who don't share your ideas is probably the WORST way to gain credibility around here. Especially when it comes to philosophy.
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on Jan 12th, 2005 at 10:33 AM
Take something simple, like a red pen, and ask people what color it is. Only two types of people will get hell bent on "discussing" it - Retards and philosophers. Although the retard will probably end up getting the answer right before the philosopher, and their dribble will probably be more unique and interesting.
you people just don't understand what philo means right?? Simple things which he meant are like why do apples drop... maybe that is not a good example, but you know what I mean
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
My Philosophy 101 profesor once told us that a philosopher nevers seeks popularity nor desires recognition. The simplest thing a philosopher wants to find is knowledge and wisdom. Which are things that are rather humble and precious. According to my professor any philosopher claiming to be a genius or wise is a FOOL fill with pride!
This coming from a guy that loves philosophy, but never calls people ignorant or stupid!
__________________
Last edited by WanderingDroid on Jan 12th, 2005 at 11:26 PM
philosophy is every ones own grasp of reality, those who says different only wants to distance themselves from the lot in an act to be the smarter part.
just as it is to him only he havent figured that part out yet................... it happens when it dawns on him that ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh someone else wrote that thing I thought I created............damn
kharmadog: “A judgemental person you are and one who seems to attack anyone who questions their belief or belief structure.”
kharmadog, that is exactly the role of the philosopher - questioning things! You don’t seem to know what philosophy is all about - the great Nietzsche was constantly attacking people’s views, and his one of the greatest philosophers ever as judged by history!
kharmadog: “Plato could discuss his ideas with the greatest minds of his time, or he could relate his ideals to commoners and slaves.”
I say Plato was a bore!
kharmadog: “I will not trade degrees, personal successes or IQ scores with you” - WindDancer: “According to my professor any philosopher claiming to be a genius or wise is a FOOL fill with pride!”
Well, I’ve never called myself a genius, but unfortunately my IQ scores do - I score between 145 - 160 on average - that falls into the “Genius category”, and I have High IQ societies membership certificates to prove that.
backfire: “Just out of curiosity - Do you insult your students (assuming you aren't blatantly lying about being a professor, which from what I've read seems very possible) who don't see things in the questionable and debatable way you often seem to? "
backfire, I’m not lying about being a professor, I studied hard to become one and I can’t prove to you that I am one, if you don’t believe me. But I do invite you to come and attend my classes in the capacity of a visitor if you are interested. Moreover, I never insult my students, because they never give any idiotic views - they think before they say something.
”Because that seems to be your leitmotif …”
Leitmotif, my friend, is a musical concept invented by Wagner - it’s got nothing to do with philosophy.
”Although the retard will probably end up getting the answer right before the philosopher, and their dribble will probably be more unique and interesting.”
All I can say is that small things (in this case, those uttered by retards) amuse small minds.
finti: “quote:
PHILOSOPHERS HAVE ARGUED OVER SO-CALLED SIMPLE MATTERS FOR MILENIA,
thats what happens when so called intelligent people complicate things”
finti - I refer to “so-called simple matters” as you quote me - nothing in philosophy is simple, if you think so, then you are not thinking philosophically.
“philosophy is every ones own grasp of reality, those who says different only wants to distance themselves from the lot in an act to be the smarter part.”
The above I agree with.
fire: “You're a philosophy professor?? Hmm just like that sock you made who said he had a Master in Philosophy who the hell are you kidding Man”
fire, I’m not lying about being a professor, I studied hard to become one and I can’t prove to you that I am one, if you don’t believe me. But I do invite you to come and attend my classes in the capacity of a visitor if you are interested.
Ou be Low hoo: “quote:
Originally posted by peterKSL
one judge people based on annoyance of misuse of words or merely for one own benefit of "fun"
I judge you to be an idiot, because that ^ makes no sense. quote:
No. You don't have to be 'equal' to my intelligence, your opinion simply needs to be intelligent and/or interesting.”
Ou be Low hoo, you seem to be one of the few intelligent people here - congrats! You and me would make a good team!
peterKSL: “you people just don't understand what philo means right?? Simple things which he meant are like why do apples drop... maybe that is not a good example, but you know what I mean”
peterKSL, Thanks, peter man! It’s people like you, Ou be Low hoo, and me who belongs to be in this forum, not the other half-wits.
Afro CHeese: “Originally posted by Philosophicus
Being as such is in any instance of an ontological cogitation, in an absurd struggle towards escaping from itself. If it is the case that Being as such is such a fundamental, unintelligible problem then in the event of its own resolution to its being at all, it will dissolve into non-Being as such. For if the complete and absolute conception of itself as the Presence and Absence at all has been reached - thus, if there is no greater possibility than itself, i.e. that which makes it as Being possible at all - it would not Be anymore at all, for it would have dissolved itself out of the sheer infinite transcendence beyond its own possibility. There would as well be no nothingness or non- existence, because there would be no Being. But now there arises the problem of to whom or to what instance this property of problem and resolve really belongs. Is it merely a psychological dilemma? It cannot be merely psychological as Being as such is Being as such through and through. It means that there are no gaps of nothingness in between Being as a whole. Being, as we shall see, is a solid, static continuity.
It is one essence. No individuals can have predicaments as there are none. Any problem as such is a struggling not even within Being, but as Being itself. From our point of view there is only one abstract essence; and our perspective is no perspective at all. It is continuous in and as Being – present and absent at the same time. Moreover, if being is essential an unresolved problem – it is an infinite singularity, as we shall see, of presence and absence at all -it is an oneness absurdly struggling as itself. And it seems not capable of escaping itself and its possibility. For every resolve is merely an event that is allowed by something greater - indeed another problem - than itself. And it is indeed all there really is, for it is Is. Is is as itself. As presence is something there need not be, it is a problem trying to become nothing. But it can not as it requires an anticipation of non-Being which is ontologically not a possibility. Indeed non-Being is not a possibility as possibility as such is existent.
The fundamental condition on which all previous philosophical endeavours has been actuated is that of the problematic cogitation subjected to the absurd absolute of unintelligible infinity of existence as such. While this ontological contemplation is eventual not via Being as such, but continuous in and as Being proper, it has not in any instance (as in the history of philosophical participation) really expressed itself literally as possessing the will or anticipation towards the ontological escape proper, where this escape is not an abandon of life, but indeed an escape from existence or, Being as such. For is it not the true sense of any instance of ontological analyses to resolve itself, i.e. to ultimately free the entire problem from existing at all. If that is the case, then existence or the ontological dilemma itself which is such a fundamental problem, as we are beings subjected to the forces and unknown of mere nature and are as such smaller than our environment and as we are not in any way capable of viewing existence from above or creating our own existence or being as such, should be the one true subject and object from which we would want to escape from into complete non-existence. But indeed there is the impossibility of such an absurd event. It is the problem of existence we are dealing with and not the problem of non-existence. We merely have to ask the question: Can there be or are there non-existence as such? The reality is that the idea of non-existence is generated by an existing entity or process. Existence as such can not contemplate non- existence as such – it is contra-definitive, i.e. defeating the essential definition and dimensions of existence as such. Existence does not posses qualities of non- existence in order to anticipate non-existence as such, for existence is wholly existence without any non-existential attributes. No entity or Individuality can anticipate its entire, absolute opposite, because the object of definition of opposites as such are to completely distinguish between to complete opposites - there are no common qualities. But then, opposites proper are not possible.
That would mean that the two supposed opposites originated from two opposite Beings as such, for if they did not then they do have a common origin or essence and consequently are not entirely different from one another. In other words, throughout the whole of existence, nothing can be opposite of the other - all must be tints or mere reflections of one fundamental Being. And the upshot of such a conclusion is that the whole of existence simply must be a solid oneness or unit. There can not be open spaces of discontinuity or non-being in between Existence as such. Existence is existence through and through. "
Call me ignorant but I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. It just seems like a bunch of random sentences to me.”
Afro Cheese, I don't see what is so complicated or mere 'random sentences' in my post. I cannot help you on this one - try reading Being And Nothingness by Sarte - you'd probably say the same.
Well if you're not lieing then exlpain who the hell Mind is. I'm not gonna go all the way to South Africa just to see wether or not you are a professor, there are more important things to do with my time.
__________________ Be smart, be cool, be sexy = be LIBERAL!
KMC Community Forums
Jan 12th, 2005 09:31 AM
