Philosophy Now Forum

ken wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote:
So, you believe you have the forsight to KNOW what will happen and what others will do?.

Possible the most childish and asinine straw man I've seen in an long time.

YOU are the only one telling Me what I do when I say I do not do it.

Please refer to the post I made some moments ago.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I'm pretty sure your story, devoid of details, is one that could be told by any of us - or most of us.

So it does not really change what I said.

So, you believe you have the forsight to KNOW what will happen and what others will do?.

Possible the most childish and asinine straw man I've seen in an long time.

Where is the alleged "straw man"?

YOU are the one who is saying you KNOW what I will do in the future. Therefore, you believe you have the forth sight to KNOW what will happen.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Possible the most childish and asinine straw man I've seen in an long time.

YOU are the only one telling Me what I do when I say I do not do it.

Please refer to the post I made some moments ago.

Which post?

And, what am I meant to be looking for?

ken wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote:
YOU are the only one telling Me what I do when I say I do not do it.

Please refer to the post I made some moments ago.

Which post?

And, what am I meant to be looking for?

Mis representation of an argument to make it more easy for yourself to argue. Go and figure it out.

I might give your brain some much needed exercise.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Please refer to the post I made some moments ago.

Which post?

And, what am I meant to be looking for?

Mis representation of an argument to make it more easy for yourself to argue.

WHERE IS the "misrepresentation" of an alleged argument?

You want to tell Me what I WILL do, therefore, you believe you know what WILL happen.

There is absolutely NO misrepresentation nor straw man on My part.

I am sure if there was you would be pointing it out in order to make you look smarter than what you are showing of yourself to others now.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Go and figure it out.

I do not have to figure "it" out. If you can NOT show "it" nor explain "it", then referring Me to "some" post that you made "some" moments ago is ridiculous. I do NOT have to figure anything out because you can NOT prove where I allegedly made a misrepresentation nor a straw man. If, as you allege, I did, then I am sure you would be the first one to instantly point it out. But because you can NOT, you will just refer Me to somewhere back there, somewhere, and to figure it out Myself.

Now that is a very asinine thing to do of you. It makes you appear as though you ARE totally WRONG in BOTH what you are saying now and what you have said before hand.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I might give your brain some much needed exercise.

[/quote]

Who is now making possibly the most childish and asinine comments?

Greta wrote:I thought it obvious that I was referring to pathology. I mean, why the [expletive] would I talk about mozzie bites in that context??

As I noted, people talk about a wide variety of things when they talk about suffering, and in general, under the guise of philosophy, it's not at all unusual for people to say things that seem odd, counterintuitive, confusing, inexplicable or even outright absurd.

As Bertrand Russell said, "Whoever wishes to become a philosopher must learn not to be frightened by absurdities"--that's because you'll run into them often.

creativesoul wrote:The OP asks a nonsensical question. Meaning isn't the sort of thing that is found in a spatiotemporal location.

Not that I think he's asking for a spatio-temporal location, but I sure don't agree with "meaning isn't the sort of thing that is found in a spatio-temporal location." Meaning is a brain phenomenon, and as such has a spatio-temporal location. On my view, there are no existents that do not have a spatio-temporal location. The idea of that is incoherent on my view.

Greta wrote:I agree that suffering is inevitable. There's no escape unless you have an amazing way of looking at things. It's the fundamental problem of life.

Lacewing wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:How are you suffering, Bill?

Oh god, don't ask.

Oh god, it's an elitist of ignorance!

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.




..............................................http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2GzWwcBpAFg/S ... FERING.bmp



To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering.
~ Friedrich Nietsche ~






................................................http://thelastcrisis.tv/wp-content/uplo ... fering.jpg







........................................http://theologyforum.files.wordpress.co ... resa-2.jpg






.

Well Bill, I believe that meaning is not necessarily to be found in ones suffering. I disagree with Nietzsche, if in fact he said that, 'To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering.' I see that it is true that life often lends to suffering, sooner or later, by someones definition as to what constitutes suffering. But I see that to survive said suffering, is to curtail that which causes the suffering. There is no meaning to suffering as much as there is reason for suffering, so then there is reason for not suffering. I don't believe that suffering is intended, that it has purpose, it simply is, due to animal design.

.




Yes, you are on the right track.

The curtailing that you referred to is an adjustment, a change within us.


That change, in reaction to our suffering or our perceived suffering often times delivers a new meaning for our live.


I kind-of gave my own personal example earlier within this thread.


Thank you for participating.







.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Lacewing wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:How are you suffering, Bill?

Oh god, don't ask.

Oh god, it's an elitist of ignorance!

Fuck off SOB, and go find a sense of humor!

Lacewing wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Lacewing wrote: Oh god, don't ask.

Oh god, it's an elitist of ignorance!

Fuck off SOB, and go find a sense of humor!

Fuck??? You and I sweetie, you and I...

Terrapin Station wrote:

Greta wrote:I thought it obvious that I was referring to pathology. I mean, why the [expletive] would I talk about mozzie bites in that context??

As I noted, people talk about a wide variety of things when they talk about suffering, and in general, under the guise of philosophy, it's not at all unusual for people to say things that seem odd, counterintuitive, confusing, inexplicable or even outright absurd.

As Bertrand Russell said, "Whoever wishes to become a philosopher must learn not to be frightened by absurdities"--that's because you'll run into them often.

I shouldn't have added "itching"; it could have easily sat under the umbrella of pain. I did consider not including it, but my bloody arm was itching at the time so in it went

You could say that there was a small meaning in that moment of itchy "suffering", providing a lesson to all in distancing their attempts at philosophy from their biases

Greta wrote:

creativesoul wrote:The OP asks a nonsensical question. Meaning isn't the sort of thing that is found in a spatiotemporal location. Thus, asking "where" one finds meaning is gibberish. It is prima facie evidence that the speaker is using an emaciated conceptual framework(or they've no clue, or both). All meaning is attributed. It is a direct result of and therefore reflects all the current and past connections, associations, and/or correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself(emotional attitude/state of mind).

Dig in Bill...

It can be looked at in that way. However, reading between the lines, it's clear that Bill wants to talk about how we are shaped by our suffering, and how we learn from it.

Not that I disagree with what you've concluded by reading between the lines. However, if something is clear there is no need to read between the lines. That said...

My answer holds good for what you've claimed to be clear...