SpheresOfBalance wrote:All wrong, you obviously don't know what Socrates meant. It seems to have gone over your head. You're also wrong, with your analysis of others, as you see it only as a comparison to yourself as if you've chosen the only correct course. In this way you are a fool. The reason we don't agree is for the same reason many philosophers don't. So I'll put it to you so you can no longer argue with me and it shall prove you to be the idiot, that you exude. ...
Let me put it to you that by your stance this "All wrong" and this "You're also wrong" are things you cannot claim.
Answer me which theory of truth is correct?
One of the Substantive theories, either Correspondence, Coherence, Constructivist, Consensus, or Pragmatic.
OR
One of the Minimalist (deflationary) theories, Performative, Redundancy.
OR
Pluralist theories
OR
One of the formal theories, either logic mathematics, Semantic or Kripke's
Now do you understand, now please shut up. ...
Sure, once you tell me how any of these relates to 'philosophers' using metaphysical ontology to discover 'truths' about the world of the Physicists that they have missed? I ask this because, simplistically, the whole point of the Newtonians was that they did away with the above thoughts of the philosophers with respect to 'truth' and instead said, "Tell me the conditions of the experiment that would show the truth of your proposition with respect to the phenomena so that I can repeat it for myself and therefore convince myself of its truth?". So I guess they could be pragmaticists with respect to 'truth'. Although many would argue, if they actually cared about such things, for many of the above, if they could be bothered to understand them.
I think your last "or" appears confused as Kripke's theory was a semantic theory of truth with respect to non-classical Logics. No idea what "logic mathematics" is?
In the future, I'll merely say, "Your wrong, as I, like you, believe otherwise, as Socrates said, 'we only know that we know nothing,' ...
Actually that was Tolstoy.
do you understand, possibly not. Enough said. Move along." And that about sums it up. Unlike you, that assumes you know it all, my argument has always been that you cannot say with certainty, however fools like you would have it otherwise. You're nothing but ego, that uses what you've been told, merely as a weapon, and a means of self stroking, and I don't. Which is why I say you don't understand Socrates at all.
I find that laughable from someone who has never read Platos account of Socrates. I also find it hysterical that most of your posts are full of the certainty of your thoughts whereas, in the main, mine, when its to do with thinking philosophically about something, are full of questions, which, in the past, when asked of you, have met with much ire and the production of a dictionary. So I guess you go with the consensus view of 'truth'.
And you can take your psycho babble and stick it up your psycho ass, as you fear psychology because it nails you to the ground, and makes you equal to every one else, and you can't stand that because you're an elitist, a megalomaniac, with visions of grandeur as to your potency. So in other words, a psychotic fool. You figure that if you deny the very thing that defines you, then you can believe you're not definable. An ostrich with its head in the sand. Further you are a would be slave owner, that desires to beat people over the head with any weapon that you can muster, while trying to ensure that it can't happen to you. In other words a coward to boot.
Again laughable from the man who claimed to 'play' or 'pick and choose' what he wanted to believe from his psychoanalysts and once again I note great certainty in your words. That you wish to make everyone 'equal' shows your naivety, me, I believe all can can be the best they can and am under no illusions that some are 'smarter' in many fields, including philosophy, than me. In fact the study of Philosophy, if one truly loves it, rams that point home and the study of a science also makes it clear but the reason I love both fields is that all can learn from one how Reason works, i.e. Logic and, to boot, the cultural history of Western thought, and for the other anyone can make a contribution no matter how small, all it takes is application. With respect to Psychology and Psychoanalysis, I've already told you, I've taken a great amount from two of the worlds great living phenomenological philosophers of mind(although they'd not claim this) NLP's John Grinder and Richard Bandler but you dismissed them purely because of the word "magic" which to me pretty much puts the lie to you claiming to know nothing.
And as to tillingborn, I don't think he's as shallow or jaded as you. I think that he's smart enough to know that if you choose to engage someone, it's because you choose to, and in so choosing, it is incumbent upon you, to maintain the same dignified decorum, as if you were face to face, a diplomat caring as much for the other as you do yourself, you fucking wanker, sure patience is a part of it, on 'both' sides of the fence. You, one way freak, you. And don't you dare whine, just because we take each other on differently, you passive aggressively, and me active aggressively. Any fool can see what you words are loaded with, you pompous selfish idiot.
You've obviously not participated in any philosophy seminars or met any who claim the title. But I accept that over the years here I've probably become jaded with the repeated appearance of those who talk shitloads about a subject they've not bothered to study. But I'm also confident that when I'm talking to those who have a sincere interest in discussing a subject philosophically, or actually know what they are talking about philosophically, rather than just promoting their 'truth', my replies show all of the above(although there is one instance I truly regret). Whereas since the get-go your posts have when having to discuss with someone who disagrees with you or questions your thoughts rather than agreeing with them, in the main, devolved into rancour and insult. You are quick to take offense and have a pole so far up your arse I'm surprised you can sit to type.
I personally think, in hindsight, he could have also solved his issues with others with "I think in language, language cannot be without two, therefore there is at least one other".
ROTFLMFAO: (The emoticons and internet acronym are for the girly you, what ever that may be, with respect to the truth of your person, that obviously only you know for sure, or maybe not. Look, I'm just treating you in kind.)