Reflex wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 10:43 pm
It's kinda like when I ask, "What must be in order for what is to be as it is?" No one is prepared to answer either question with any degree of decorum.
Lets parse the question: What must be / in order for what is / to be as it is?
It's the type of question to which no real response can be provided, therefore its conclusion would default to...the way things are is how it must be to be what it is.
We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man’s opinion on tram cars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters — except everything. -- G. K. Chesterton
Need I say more?
But you haven't said anything! Why is it that the people who have nothing to say on their own always need to quote someone else?
You posed the question, ""What must be in order for what is to be as it is?", so why not attempt an answer? No one is expecting a revelation.
Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:12 pm
It all has to fit.
Why? It has been resolved with the simple "yo momma sucks." K I S S. Keep it simple stupid. Anything else is too disruptive, biased, elitist and insulting to consider.
Lets parse the question: What must be / in order for what is / to be as it is?
It's the type of question to which no real response can be provided, therefore its conclusion would default to...the way things are is how it must be to be what it is.
We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man’s opinion on tram cars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters — except everything. -- G. K. Chesterton
Need I say more?
But you haven't said anything! Why is it that the people who have nothing to say on their own always need to quote someone else?
You posed the question, ""What must be in order for what is to be as it is?", so why not attempt an answer? No one is expecting a revelation.
My question is in response to the question posed in the OP. I was merely stating that the questions are similar in that that the generally evoke the same kind of response. We can talk about the significance of my question but talking about how I answer it is another subject altogether.
Reflex wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 10:43 pm
"What must be in order for what is to be as it is?"
Its precipitating determinants.
Once again, my question is in response to the question posed in the OP. Greta answered it quite directly with "What's going on?" I can respect that in spite of our differences. The difference in our approach is that Greta is primarily interested in the "what" whereas I'm primarily interested in the "why." I am very interested in the what, too, but it's just a helpful footnote to my primary interest.
Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:12 pm
It all has to fit.
Why? It has been resolved with the simple "yo momma sucks." K I S S. Keep it simple stupid. Anything else is too disruptive, biased, elitist and insulting to consider.
Peace be to all.
Well, a good philosophy should make it all fit.
If something doesn’t fit then it’s either back to the drawing board or it’s add another layer of complexity to make it fit, more abstraction upon the template. Complications quickly arise in the foundation if a misfit piece is an iconic premise cast in concrete.
Harassment is like memories. Some memories do you good, some don't.
Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:12 pm
It all has to fit.
Why? It has been resolved with the simple "yo momma sucks." K I S S. Keep it simple stupid. Anything else is too disruptive, biased, elitist and insulting to consider.
Peace be to all.
Well, a good philosophy should make it all fit.
If something doesn’t fit then it’s either back to the drawing board or it’s add another layer of complexity to make it fit, more abstraction upon the template. Complications quickly arise in the foundation if a misfit piece is an iconic premise cast in concrete.
Harassment is like memories. Some memories do you good, some don't.
You've described the purpose of and the necessity for BS. Without this virtually essential substance, existence and the recognition that it doesn't fit would be intolerable for all those trapped in a dualistic mindest. That is why it must be continually defended and supported. Without BS making it fit, modern man may well be doomed.
Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:19 pm
Well, a good philosophy should make it all fit.
Whaddya know? I agree with you. Funny that Nick_A should rail against dualistic thinking
It isn't tht i rail gainst dualistic thinking but rther ccept its limitations.From Wiki
The concept known as the law of the instrument, otherwise known as the law of the hammer,[1] Maslow's hammer (or gavel), or the golden hammer,[a] is a cognitive bias that involves an over-reliance on a familiar tool. As Abraham Maslow said in 1966, "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."[2]
Secularists and atheists here limiting themselves to dualistic reason in contemplating philosophical and spiritual questions have become victims of Maslow's hammer. It may be the way of the world which is not to say certain individuals cannot expand their tool box, it just isn't fashionable to do so.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:40 pm
Secularists and atheists here limiting themselves to dualistic reason in contemplating philosophical and spiritual questions...
What about theists who do that? Why do you not speak of them?
Why does your dualistic mind falsely limit its focus when presenting your own dualistic reasoning?
Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:40 pm
Secularists and atheists here limiting themselves to dualistic reason in contemplating philosophical and spiritual questions have become victims of Maslow's hammer.
If true, though it's only an illusion you succumbed to, why would you care? Why not let the secularists and atheists go their way while you continue your journey on the path of enlightenment - if you haven't already arrived. Why should someone like you care what the rest of us despiritualized Nibelheimers think?
Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:40 pm
Secularists and atheists here limiting themselves to dualistic reason in contemplating philosophical and spiritual questions have become victims of Maslow's hammer.
If true, though it's only an illusion you succumbed to, why would you care? Why not let the secularists and atheists go their way while you continue your journey on the path of enlightenment - if you haven't already arrived. Why should someone like you care what the rest of us despiritualized Nibelheimers think?
“The greatest responsibility of all: the transmission of the mystery.”
—Basarab Nicolescu
Your apparent goal is the destruction of the mystery by diminishing it into secular superficiality. You can have your way but why do the innocent whose minds are beginning to open have to endure a slow spiritual death. I support those who have and are now serving as a necessary awakening influence in the world. I know their ideas are hated and why you must hate them but that doesn't mean everyone should give in to secular rejection..
Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:25 amPlease, please! I can only handle two nozzles at a time.
Take lessons from Stormy Daniels. She'll teach you how to expand your horizons.
What a pig of a statement.
Did your idol and role model, the Trumpster, give you details about how he cheated on his wife and family? This is the nature of the person in the world you most support and respect today. Your hero is amoral.
Most non religious people are FAR more moral and decent than you, despite your false lofty pronouncements.
