The highest dialogical struggle.

[TheVisionofEr]

In dialectic, in attempting to show rather than assert, with the aid of another, or dialogic discussion which is the same, but perhaps less defined in purpose, is the best thing to be slammed down and proven to have been wrong so as to learn? If this is so it is truly pitiful to see one reach the heights of this science of diologic through freely exposing themselves to the violence of their own deaths by the truth.

[Arising_uk]

Can you say this in simple English?

[TheVisionofEr]

Can you say this in simple English?

Philosophy is not really meant for illiterate people.

[Impenitent]

star belly sneeches are bestest

-Imp

[Atla]

I think in English it might be something like: the truth (once we have figured it out) can crush many of the ideals that got us into seeking the truth in the first place?

If so, then that's unfortunately correct several times over. However we can also acquire some new awesome ideals that we didn't know existed.

[TheVisionofEr]

I think in English it might be something like: the truth (once we have figured it out) can crush many of the ideals that got us into seeking the truth in the first place?

People killed Socrates out of fury. Because he embarrassed them and harmed their public power. But, for the friends of truth being shown out to be ignorant might be freeing. And yet, it is always very painful to admit ignorance and error and one often prefers to keep one's ego, not to say one's professional reputation upon which one's livelihood is dependent, safe than to harm it for the sake of learning.

[Atla]

I think in English it might be something like: the truth (once we have figured it out) can crush many of the ideals that got us into seeking the truth in the first place?

People killed Socrates out of fury. Because he embarrassed them and harmed their public power. But, for the friends of truth being shown out to be ignorant might be freeing. And yet, it is always very painful to admit ignorance and error and one often prefers to keep one's ego, not to say one's professional reputation upon which one's livelihood is dependent, safe than to harm it for the sake of learning.

Yeah that too. I think that's why most brighter philosophers nowadays usually don't even dare to address the issue that the entire dualistic paradigm of Western philosophy got refuted by science lately. We wouldn't just need to throw out 2500 years of dialogue, but philosophers would need to find a new job.

[tapaticmadness]

I think in English it might be something like: the truth (once we have figured it out) can crush many of the ideals that got us into seeking the truth in the first place?

People killed Socrates out of fury. Because he embarrassed them and harmed their public power. But, for the friends of truth being shown out to be ignorant might be freeing. And yet, it is always very painful to admit ignorance and error and one often prefers to keep one's ego, not to say one's professional reputation upon which one's livelihood is dependent, safe than to harm it for the sake of learning.

Yeah that too. I think that's why most brighter philosophers nowadays usually don't even dare to address the issue that the entire dualistic paradigm of Western philosophy got refuted by science lately. We wouldn't just need to throw out 2500 years of dialogue, but philosophers would need to find a new job.

Science has not refuted the dualistic paradigm of Western philosophy.

[tapaticmadness]

In dialectic, in attempting to show rather than assert, with the aid of another, or dialogic discussion which is the same, but perhaps less defined in purpose, is the best thing to be slammed down and proven to have been wrong so as to learn? If this is so it is truly pitiful to see one reach the heights of this science of diologic through freely exposing themselves to the violence of their own deaths by the truth.

I love your style of writing. I am a great believer that style is more important than matter and form than content.

[TheVisionofEr]

I love your style of writing. I am a great believer that style is more important than matter and form than content.

One must keep the utterly stupid from the door, to maintain the dignity of the pursuit of truth. And this likely means you. dixi

[TheVisionofEr]

Yeah that too. I think that's why most brighter philosophers nowadays usually don't even dare to address the issue that the entire dualistic paradigm of Western philosophy got refuted by science lately. We wouldn't just need to throw out 2500 years of dialogue, but philosophers would need to find a new job.

"Science" is the name for the part of philosophy or the 2500-old-tradition now popular. "Dualistic" is a very vague term. The whole tradition is the tradition of a theory of something available to humans. Thus, suggesting two things. Humans, and their object. The only serious challenge to this idea is in Phenomenology, and ultimately the thinking of Martin Heidegger.

It's also so that science is not science form the point of the view of the tradition, but it is, rather, art of experiment or techne, which means technology. It has no proper intellectual content. Only an empirical or repeatable observable content.

[tapaticmadness]

I love your style of writing. I am a great believer that style is more important than matter and form than content.

One must keep the utterly stupid from the door, to maintain the dignity of the pursuit of truth. And this likely means you. dixi

I am a fan of aestheticism. Maybe you are an opponent of that. https://www.dropbox.com/s/c2su52qu6iqp3 ... 1.pdf?dl=0

[tapaticmadness]

Yeah that too. I think that's why most brighter philosophers nowadays usually don't even dare to address the issue that the entire dualistic paradigm of Western philosophy got refuted by science lately. We wouldn't just need to throw out 2500 years of dialogue, but philosophers would need to find a new job.

"Science" is the name for the part of philosophy or the 2500-old-tradition now popular. "Dualistic" is a very vague term. The whole tradition is the tradition of a theory of something available to humans. Thus, suggesting two things. Humans, and their object. The only serious challenge to this idea is in Phenomenology, and ultimately the thinking of Martin Heidegger.

It's also so that science is not science form the point of the view of the tradition, but it is, rather, art of experiment or techne, which means technology. It has no proper intellectual content. Only an empirical or repeatable observable content.

Here's a quote from my favorite philosopher, "The differences among some of the several existents are very great indeed. I, for one, would not hesitate to call them momentous, or enormous. That, I submit is a major source of the resistance serious ontology has always met. For these differences are much greater than most are prepared to face." Gustav Bergmann.

[Atla]

People killed Socrates out of fury. Because he embarrassed them and harmed their public power. But, for the friends of truth being shown out to be ignorant might be freeing. And yet, it is always very painful to admit ignorance and error and one often prefers to keep one's ego, not to say one's professional reputation upon which one's livelihood is dependent, safe than to harm it for the sake of learning.

Yeah that too. I think that's why most brighter philosophers nowadays usually don't even dare to address the issue that the entire dualistic paradigm of Western philosophy got refuted by science lately. We wouldn't just need to throw out 2500 years of dialogue, but philosophers would need to find a new job.

Science has not refuted the dualistic paradigm of Western philosophy.

Of course it has, to the extent it's possible to refute something.

[Atla]

Yeah that too. I think that's why most brighter philosophers nowadays usually don't even dare to address the issue that the entire dualistic paradigm of Western philosophy got refuted by science lately. We wouldn't just need to throw out 2500 years of dialogue, but philosophers would need to find a new job.

"Science" is the name for the part of philosophy or the 2500-old-tradition now popular. "Dualistic" is a very vague term. The whole tradition is the tradition of a theory of something available to humans. Thus, suggesting two things. Humans, and their object. The only serious challenge to this idea is in Phenomenology, and ultimately the thinking of Martin Heidegger.

It's also so that science is not science form the point of the view of the tradition, but it is, rather, art of experiment or techne, which means technology. It has no proper intellectual content. Only an empirical or repeatable observable content.

Dualistic thinking as contrasted with nondual thinking, the two great philosophical metaparadigms (I'm not talking about Western monism and not even really about Western nondualism). It was shown that the idea of fundamental dichotomies is untenable, it's just an exotic view with nothing to back it up. Thing-ness, essence, substance are also interesting made-up ideas. It's mostly not about the intellectual content itself, but about how any intellectual content should be structured in the first place.

Science is not really considered to be part of philosophy anymore btw, only on paper.