Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:That's what I said, "philosophy is everywhere." It is not a thing, it is the process of consideration, but first one must have something to consider, anywhere you find reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language there is philosophy, I never said it was necessarily good philosophy.

Then I think your sentence should have been "There are subjects to philosophize about everywhere" or "Everything can be a subject of philosophy".
I call your attention to the following definitions as found in the Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd.

Pay particular attention to def's 5 & 6:

philosophy (fɪˈlɒsəfɪ) — n , pl -phies
1. the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)
2. the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school: the philosophy of Descartes
3. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a discipline: the philosophy of law
4. archaic , literary or the investigation of natural phenomena, esp alchemy, astrology, an astronomy
5. any system of belief, values, or tenets
6. a personal outlook or viewpoint
7. serenity of temper

When reading the news, cannot one sense exactly that, which is presented in definitions 5 & 6 above? And for one to bring it here, (PNF), isn't it obvious, that they see that what was presented, as a sound philosophy, should be questioned, isn't that a given?

That's what you just said, not I.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:... The only time I'm aware of, that he was a bit nasty, was with BB, and her demise, but if I remember correctly, he regretted it, a good man.

So says you, who are you to hold him to your expectations? He initiates threads for people to consider, I don't see an issue. Again, it would be nice to hear more from him, but that's his way, for now. To me it seems that you believe that philosophy is all about arguments, it's not. And when you can't get him to engage you, as you 'want,' you get frustrated and pick at him. Since you haven't been successful in getting Bill 'your' way, I believe that you search for his new threads, just so you can mess with him, your idea of fun. I think it's you that has a warped since of good.

Nope, if you check you'll see that I only engage with his threads where I see a contradiction or blatant bollocks.

I don't hold him to my expectations, I express my thoughts upon his posts. I've repeatedly said that he's free to post what he likes and I have no issue with it.

I do have a personal issue with those who post on a philosophy forum without having read any of those we call the philosophers and with those who express pride in being anti-intellectual and uneducated in this way but still think they can comment upon the subject from such a position but am realistic enough to understand that in this medium theres bugger-all I can do about it other than express my opinion.
Aren't you then an elitist, prejudice, saying who can and cannot join into your exclusive club, as though your particular education gives license above others of lessor means? Even the dumbest of dumb, have philosophies, albeit, possibly flawed, but that is not necessarily the case, and I can see it being reversed as well, but more importantly who are you to say who can and cannot play the game? One does not have to read any philosopher in order to have a philosophy. You, it would seem, just try and find 'value' in your time spent with education, as you cast down others of meager means, as you have not been capable of finding it elsewhere. If you can't humiliate others, of more meager means, with the time you've spent learning of some 'others' philosophy, then what good has it been? You use your education as a weapon, not to enlighten, as evidenced in your attitude as you wield it. Your tit for tat arguments with Bob over which country is better, is evidence of this, as well as how you've explained to me your meaning in the term Yank. Your 'use' of emoticons is another example. Bigot comes to mind, one that can't see past their own nose. This is not the mode of a true philosopher. Socrates was the best example of a true philosopher, IMHO. Ego should remain in the background as much as possible.

Where is this statement of 'perfect sense' of his? What page of this thread? I would like to see if I concur, with your appraisal. Were you good for apologizing for a wrong committed? Of course, but that hardly makes you a good man, across the board, you do realize I was speaking of that one act, right?

Bottom of page one and the following three posts.

You sound confused now? As you said a good man is someone who apologises, nothing about it being a one time thing.
No, that's how you took it. reread to find what I really meant, compare it to your above paraphrase, of what I actually said, I noticed that you quoted me, several lines above, but here it is again, so as to be clear:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The only time I'm aware of, that he was a bit nasty, was with BB, and her demise, but if I remember correctly, he regretted it, a good man.

Or one could see that I said that in this instance, of regretting a rash decision, he was a good man. Note that I said, "The only time I'm aware of" If one acknowledges the inability to necessarily know of all instances in which criterion believed to yield a particular blanket assertion is true, how then could they make such an assertion. With my acknowledgement, I can only be talking of that particular instance. You saw what you needed to see for your argument.

Well I'm pretty sure you don't.

Care to say why?
One can easily see the conflict of interests involved in being a mod of 'such' a forum, as I've already referenced earlier in this thread, as to Rick. If one truly understands the why of that conflict, I see that they would tread differently than you have, some of this reasoning is contained throughout this particular response.

No you missed it, you are the antagonist, of course I guess you are an irritation as well. But that was not the most important part of the above. I guess the depth of your being as to fear, and truth lies with your choice of discourse.

And how your discourse often goes says what about you?
That, depending upon my mood, I allow the frustration of dealing with some particular differences between peoples method of interaction, that I find a waste of time, to rub me the wrong way, or to the extent, that I loose control of calm response. While I see the need to be calm in the face of adversity, as it's really no ones fault, except for the true trolls, I have off days where I allow other frustrations in my life to manifest intolerance, which in fact is contrary to my understanding of things. I'm an extremely emotional person, due to my experiences, some of which, I've made known to you, largely so you can understand the why of it. If only there were micro switches one could flip.

For someone who oft quotes Socrates(although I suspect this is all you've read about him) I'm surprised you think questions an issue as Socrates was apparently known as a gadfly to those who thought themselves philosophers and all he did was ask them questions as he knew he knew nothing and knew enough to know that from this position a question is what is required.
I've never said questions are at issue, rather your assumption. At issue is your condescension, via emoticons and things like "(although I suspect this is all you've read about him)," (unnecessary, only for singular purpose, to demean, as you could not possibly know this to be true); twisting the 'rhino tie' to mean something less, than what it was, without knowing, just to be nasty; to speak of ones character, without the slightest possibility of knowing what it truly is. etc. You mix lies as to ones character into your argument, as lies are untruths, as if just because you know that they can exist, that they necessarily exist, in every instance, a very shallow and misinformed position, not one of a true philosopher. You and your arguments would be better served if you would not accuse one of such before you ask, or make point of the possibility, as you have found it to be sometimes true. In this respect it's easy to see that you do not know what Socrates means when he says 'I only know, that I know nothing.' As I've said, regardless of the most brilliant philosophers work, if they do not understand these words, as evidenced in their delivery, then they've missed something very fundamental to philosophy, and this then is why I'm forever referencing that quote, when I see it's need.

I've already explained, reread if you care too, I care not to reiterate that which was clear enough the first time. You can be extremely trying, on purpose, I believe.

And this is why I think many are not suited to philosophy as they wish others to agree without being clear about their own thoughts. So do you or do you not think the issue is an imminent one? If its not then how far in the the future does something have to be before it stops being an issue for the present? If you say never then although I'd think you naive at least I'd understand the despair I hear in many of your words.
The reason I find your question to be invalid: Quantify imminent? Which I've already asserted, and you ignored, to once again ask. and you wonder why I say you're not worth answering, as you waste time on ground already covered. The answer to this, I already provided in:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Should one gorge their mouth with solid fat and pure sugar, just to the point of a massive coronary, before abstaining? And for the sake of what? Gorging?

How could one possibly interpret this? I see only one way, please provide another.

After your reading the above and not getting it, I can't see where further explanation will do any good. I think you pretend to ignore ones words, so as to ask that which has already been stated, so as to wear down your opponent with discourse of unrequired repetition. It's really not that important that you don't get it, as I'm confident others shall.

Fair enough, as I think this about my words too. It's not pretence, its to do with this being a philosophy forum and clarity of thoughts. Like I've said, the meaning of ones words is the response they get, I'd also add that if asked to repeat an explanation then doing it differently might be better than just saying the same thing again and it shows that one understands what they are talking about.
I understand everything I'm talking about, to the point that my words reflect. Who are you, to question my logic in knowing, with irreverence, as if some sort of authority? There may be a difference in the way a receiver understands them, but it is egotistical and arrogant to always make statements about the transmitters meaning, as though the receiver knows that it is incorrect, and assert the misconception in such a way, as to make the false reception the fault of the transmitter, rather than simply ask for clarity, otherwise the receiver runs the risk of needlessly insulting the transmitter.

Incorrect, as your flawed idea places the blame on the transmitter, and is therefore a lie, it is false. It's selfish, egotistical, arrogant, misinformed, etc. I could, if hard pressed, as it's hard for me to be anything other than honest, formulate one just as incorrect, in favor of the transmitter, against the receiver. The truth is that it's exactly equal In the following graphic representation:
Transmitter -----> | -----> Receiver

Where:
Black represents the people of different mind.
Blue represents conveyance/language of different dialect.
Red represents exactly where misconception lies.

Both parties are 'exactly' equal as to meaning and misconception. Thus both should tread lightly as to placing blame. While both parties are exactly equal as to the meaning being accurately conveyed, it is incumbent on the receiver to ensure they understand prior to holding the transmitter responsible for an incorrect assumption of meaning, especially if their response is to be charged with venom. In all instances the only given, for the most part, is that of black, but is only known by the respective owner, while the blue should be known by it's respective owner, people err, The red is not necessarily known by either party, as it is born of these differences between us, as neither party could necessarily know of the multitudes of particulars which manifest these ever varying, blue and black, differences of the other party.

artisticsolution wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

I've already explained, reread if you care too, I care not to reiterate that which was clear enough the first time. You can be extremely trying, on purpose, I believe.

And this is why I think many are not suited to philosophy as they wish others to agree without being clear about their own thoughts. So do you or do you not think the issue is an imminent one? If its not then how far in the the future does something have to be before it stops being an issue for the present? If you say never then although I'd think you naive at least I'd understand the despair I hear in many of your words.

After your reading the above and not getting it, I can't see where further explanation will do any good. I think you pretend to ignore ones words, so as to ask that which has already been stated, so as to wear down your opponent with discourse of unrequired repetition. It's really not that important that you don't get it, as I'm confident others shall.

Fair enough, as I think this about my words too. It's not pretence, its to do with this being a philosophy forum and clarity of thoughts. Like I've said, the meaning of ones words is the response they get, I'd also add that if asked to repeat an explanation then doing it differently might be better than just saying the same thing again and it shows that one understands what they are talking about.

I have to admit..that when I first came to this forum I think I read you wrong arising. I don't know what it was...I heard hostility in your voice instead of "i'm just saying is all".

I could not pin point it...I mean there were small things...things like "yanks" and such...but nothing to get riled about as I put down Americans too sometimes.

But then something changed...and I decided that how I read you may be my problem. That maybe I was afraid to have my ideas challenged. It was kinda embarrassing. To be wrong was not something I enjoyed...it made me cringe a little. I don't know why....it just seemed very personal...unlike making a math mistake in a test....it was more like the humiliation of making a math mistake at the chalkboard in front of the entire class.

Anyway, that was just at first, then I learned that is what philosophy is all about. It is about embarrassing yourself in front of others...lol. Ya kinda get used to it...actually I kinda like it now...only because I get bored thinking the same thing...and if someone comes along to give you something else to think about...well...that's awesome! SO now I read you as someone who is well read and shares ideas in order that someone may possibly come back with a good argument to think about....not to have others agree all the time.

I think the problem is that everyone wants to be an authority and I don't think philosophy isn't geared that way. Even the best philosophers have their work questioned. From what I have seen, philosophers tell how they got from a to b in great detail.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
One question though, did you really mean that, as I've highlighted, in Blue above? Don't and isn't seem to combat one another.

AS, I see that questioning is good, but that diplomacy, when doing so, is very important. We either want the facts to stand on their own merit, or in some peoples cases, to be smoke screened by useless demeaning dialog, or symbols, a rudeness of the immature, that the internet allows, designed to hide the little ego behind the curtain. And I see that in all truth, I have always been the one in the defensive stance, whether the offense was actively aggressive or passively aggressive. Unless I've apologized, an omission of my failure to be fair, in any particular circumstance, during this process of effective communication, amongst so many variables.

artisticsolution wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
One question though, did you really mean that, as I've highlighted, in Blue above? Don't and isn't seem to combat one another.

AS, I see that questioning is good, but that diplomacy, when doing so, is very important. We either want the facts to stand on their own merit, or in some peoples cases, to be smoke screened by useless demeaning dialog, or symbols, a rudeness of the immature, that the internet allows, designed to hide the little ego behind the curtain. And I see that in all truth, I have always been the one in the defensive stance, whether the offense was actively aggressive or passively aggressive. Unless I've apologized, an omission of my failure to be fair, in any particular circumstance, during this process of effective communication, amongst so many variables.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:[

It is simple to take out the tone of a question and simply answer the core of the same question....if we ignore all the fluff.
Contained within this fluff, in some, is venom, disrespect, selfishness, rudeness, presumption, anger, foolishness, thoughtlessness, etc.

Hjarloprillar wrote:QUOTE, SPHERES OF BALANCE
"I see that we are in a philosophy forum, and to me Philosophy requires the truth, and nothing but the truth, of the matter, anyone that finds an avenue to express condescension or insult so as to appease their need of self stroking, at any costs, is no true philosopher"

SoB

recent ones called by You to me.
I am called a numb nuts
a dipshit
a dumb son of a bitch boy!!
I think your cancer is now systemic.
[nice. its like die now you piece of shit]

So by own regimen you are no true philosopher.?

Nikos of Sparta

artisticsolution wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:[

It is simple to take out the tone of a question and simply answer the core of the same question....if we ignore all the fluff.
Contained within this fluff, in some, is venom, disrespect, selfishness, rudeness, presumption, anger, foolishness, thoughtlessness, etc.

So? People can exhibit unkind behavior that doesn't mean that is who they are all the time. Sometimes I think instead of fighting, we can just be blunt and ask...."did you mean to be rude when you said such and such? Cause I detected a hint of rudeness?"

Maybe they would come back and say, "No I did not mean it that way...sorry if it sounded like that."

Then perhaps the disagreement would not continue into an all out brawl.

I believe sometimes there can be a tendency for us all to 'hear' tones that are not there or make mountains out of molehills.
Yes, I agree with all the above, you have made valid points. Though don't forget about those that are here to play games, You could ask if they meant something, and they might say no, just to try and string you along, take you for a ride/fool. But I agree, overall!


Oh and no...I don't think you sound like a woman....not that sounding like a woman wouldn't do you a world of good...lol..anyway....don't know where you got that from...I said exactly what I meant. That it has been my experience, when dealing with women.
It's just that we were talking of something I do, and then you attributed it to primarily a female thing. But I'm sure my wife would agree with you that it would be much nicer if I sounded a bit more feminine. Actually at my age, my testosterone is waning, damn the bad luck, as I'd still prefer to do it, three times a day, good exercise for the core.