Philosophy, If You Want It

[Sculptor]

Rc - I really don't understand your approach. You seem to have abandoned philosophy for opinion. Feel free to do so, but I don't know how to engage in a discussion if you see no need to counter opposing views before adopting one. So I have to retire from this one.

I am starting to know what you mean.
There is no argument in RC, just opinion stating and then ignoring counter statements.

[RCSaunders]

He is not saying it as a philosophical statement.

No, he was saying that by 1984 that is what philosophers would be teaching. He was right.

Rubbish.
He was saying nothing of the kind and no philosopher has EVER taught that.

Well I think it is exactly what George Orwell was saying, but it's an opinion not worth arguing about, unless you are really stressed about it.

You still have not addressed my points.

I did, actually, but you didn't like my answers. That's not the same thing as not addressing your points, is it?

[Sculptor]

No, he was saying that by 1984 that is what philosophers would be teaching. He was right.

Rubbish.
He was saying nothing of the kind and no philosopher has EVER taught that.

Well I think it is exactly what George Orwell was saying, but it's an opinion not worth arguing about, unless you are really stressed about it.

You still have not addressed my points.

I did, actually, but you didn't like my answers. That's not the same thing as not addressing your points, is it?

1984 is FICTION.
You've not addressed a single point. Your main point above in critique of Hume was refuted utterly given the context of Plato's theory of Forms, which you perhaps do not understand.
Not only did you misrepresent Hume but you had no idea what he was talking about.
This all goes back the my initial thought that the problem has nothing to do with philosophy, in fact that there is no problem at all, except in your mind's inability to understand what is being said.

[RCSaunders]

1984 is FICTION.

Ah, yeah. I think everyone agrees to that. I mean, the content of the book is fiction, but there really was such a book, that's not fiction. It really had an author, that's not fiction. The author really wrote "war is peace, peace is war," that is not fiction. It's a good example of the kind of contradictory things philosophers say, and that's not fiction.

... Your main point above in critique of Hume was refuted utterly given the context of Plato's theory of Forms, which you perhaps do not understand.
Not only did you misrepresent Hume but you had no idea what he was talking about.
This all goes back the my initial thought that the problem has nothing to do with philosophy, in fact that there is no problem at all, except in your mind's inability to understand what is being said.

Right. Hylomorphism really is tough to understand. It's nonsense but, like most made up nonsense, easier to believe (you've apparenty swallowed it) than actually understanding the nature of reality. That's an intereting idea, though, defending one form of fallacy (Hume's) with another form (Plato's).

I know Hume was a good Catholic and probably infected with neo-platonism, like most students of Jesuit Universities are, but I doubt Hume was influenced by Plato at all. I don't care if you think he was.

[Sculptor]

1984 is FICTION.

Ah, yeah. I think everyone agrees to that. I mean, the content of the book is fiction, but there really was such a book, that's not fiction. It really had an author, that's not fiction. The author really wrote "war is peace, peace is war," that is not fiction. It's a good example of the kind of contradictory things philosophers say, and that's not fiction.

... Your main point above in critique of Hume was refuted utterly given the context of Plato's theory of Forms, which you perhaps do not understand.
Not only did you misrepresent Hume but you had no idea what he was talking about.
This all goes back the my initial thought that the problem has nothing to do with philosophy, in fact that there is no problem at all, except in your mind's inability to understand what is being said.

Right. Hylomorphism really is tough to understand. It's nonsense but, like most made up nonsense, easier to believe (you've apparenty swallowed it) than actually understanding the nature of reality. That's an intereting idea, though, defending one form of fallacy (Hume's) with another form (Plato's).

I know Hume was a good Catholic and probably infected with neo-platonism, like most students of Jesuit Universities are, but I doubt Hume was influenced by Plato at all. I don't care if you think he was.

Hume was an atheist.

The rest of what you say is no relevant to the discussion.
You really need to give up philosophy - it does not suit you.

Hylomprphism?? You are just pulling Sh!t out of a bag.

[RCSaunders]

You really need to give up philosophy - it does not suit you.

You can relax. I have no interest in what you call philosophy.

Hylomprphism?? You are just pulling Sh!t out of a bag.

Hylomorphism, which is the idea of "matter and form," was fully developed by Aristotle, beginning in his first book of physics, but the idea was originated by Plato.

"Plato's philosophy is best known for its Platonic Realism (also, confusingly, known as Platonic Idealism), its hylomorphism (the idea that substances are forms inhering in matter) and its Theory of Forms ("Forms" are the eternal, unchangeable, perfect universals, of which the particular objects we sense around us are imperfect copies). It poses an eternal universe, and describes idea as prior to matter, so that the substantive reality around us is only a reflection of a higher truth."

It is a very common term in philosophy.

[Sculptor]

You really need to give up philosophy - it does not suit you.

You can relax. I have no interest in what you call philosophy.

Hylomprphism?? You are just pulling Sh!t out of a bag.

Hylomorphism, which is the idea of "matter and form," was fully developed by Aristotle, beginning in his first book of physics, but the idea was originated by Plato.

"Plato's philosophy is best known for its Platonic Realism (also, confusingly, known as Platonic Idealism), its hylomorphism (the idea that substances are forms inhering in matter) and its Theory of Forms ("Forms" are the eternal, unchangeable, perfect universals, of which the particular objects we sense around us are imperfect copies). It poses an eternal universe, and describes idea as prior to matter, so that the substantive reality around us is only a reflection of a higher truth."

It is a very common term in philosophy.

You can keep pulling sh1t out of a bag as much as you like. Doing it twice does not make it more relevant.