How does the philosopher react to artillery shells?
Re: How does the philosopher react to artillery shells?
Love over comes fear.love can overcome the fear of death for the right cause.as in suicide.you know like kamikasi pilotes in ww2.
Re: How does the philosopher react to artillery shells?
Philosophers are humans too, filled with emotions and feelings, not all can control their thoughts under stress, and therefore some may panic, which suggests that your list of options are too limited and doesn't account for psychological aspects of human nature.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 16379
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
- Contact:
'thick skin'
"Why not get it done with, as Gary Gilmore said."
HA!
For one: I like living...if the wall is likely to ensure that, then I'm behind it.
For another: why the hell should I give a rat's ass what Gilmore said?
The man was stupid and loony.
Of course, you can choose to get exploded, it you like...makes me no nevermind.
#
"You seem rather keen to discredit me so early on."
Not me!
K did that the minute any of us posted in this thread.
Even I (knowing this thread is just a big sharp stick) am the butt of his joke.
*shrug*
HA!
For one: I like living...if the wall is likely to ensure that, then I'm behind it.
For another: why the hell should I give a rat's ass what Gilmore said?
The man was stupid and loony.
Of course, you can choose to get exploded, it you like...makes me no nevermind.
#
"You seem rather keen to discredit me so early on."
Not me!
K did that the minute any of us posted in this thread.
Even I (knowing this thread is just a big sharp stick) am the butt of his joke.
*shrug*
- Kuznetzova
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm
Re: How does the philosopher react to artillery shells?
(1) Your body is composed of bound molecules. (2) Those bonds can be broken with force.
You would never in your life type these two facts into a philosophy forum. You prefer to introduce skeptical doubt on them by utilizing squirrely language games. When placed in a situation where they would be tested, your behavior would coincide with both the knowledge of and acceptance of these as facts.
You would never in your life type these two facts into a philosophy forum. You prefer to introduce skeptical doubt on them by utilizing squirrely language games. When placed in a situation where they would be tested, your behavior would coincide with both the knowledge of and acceptance of these as facts.
-
Ansiktsburk
- Posts: 515
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:03 pm
- Location: Central Scandinavia
Re: How does the philosopher react to artillery shells?
Probably, maybe not, if I understand you correctly. But you can do that and still embrace a dualistic view of the world.Kuznetzova wrote:(1) Your body is composed of bound molecules. (2) Those bonds can be broken with force.
You would never in your life type these two facts into a philosophy forum. You prefer to introduce skeptical doubt on them by utilizing squirrely language games. When placed in a situation where they would be tested, your behavior would coincide with both the knowledge of and acceptance of these as facts.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: How does the philosopher react to artillery shells?
Of course there are.Ginkgo wrote:There are no atheists in foxholes when under attack.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: How does the philosopher react to artillery shells?
As a philosopher and a soldier I'd have been behind the wall on the first explosion and not needed telling. You watch too many films.Kuznetzova wrote:So you have found yourself at Stalingrad when the Nazis are bombing and invading the city. The morning has been mostly quiet, until a large explosion suddenly goes off nearby. The lieutenant in your company grabs your shirt by the collar and yells into your face: "They are hitting us with artillery! GET BEHIND THAT WALL OR YOU WILL BE TORN TO SHREDS!"
Fortunately, you are a philosopher. Your education affords you many options here that are not available to most people. ...
Re: How does the philosopher react to artillery shells?
EVERYTHING is composed of molecules, tanks, teacups, water, mud, etc, all with different properties, just saying "Your body is composed of bound molecules" makes no sense at all and are completely unrelateing to your other arguments.Kuznetzova wrote:(1) Your body is composed of bound molecules. (2) Those bonds can be broken with force.
You would never in your life type these two facts into a philosophy forum. You prefer to introduce skeptical doubt on them by utilizing squirrely language games. When placed in a situation where they would be tested, your behavior would coincide with both the knowledge of and acceptance of these as facts.
It doesn't even take any great force to break the bonds, a mere paper cut can break the bonds.
Your facts has no coherent conclusion, but merely random words in nosensical argumentation.
You ALWAYS use the arguments about molecules, no matter what you say, no matter what the topic. You have no idea what you are saying.
- Kuznetzova
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm
Re: How does the philosopher react to artillery shells?
HexHammer wrote:You ALWAYS use the arguments about molecules, no matter what you say, no matter what the topic. You have no idea what you are saying.
My posting history is publicly-available. So anyone can go see that you are not right.
Re: How does the philosopher react to artillery shells?
Ok, in very rare occations you don't say anything about molecules, happy now?Kuznetzova wrote:HexHammer wrote:You ALWAYS use the arguments about molecules, no matter what you say, no matter what the topic. You have no idea what you are saying.![]()
My posting history is publicly-available. So anyone can go see that you are not right.
- Kuznetzova
- Posts: 520
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm