Philosophy Now Forum

Jaded Sage wrote:No, I don't have those spiritual diseases anymore. I occationally get hyper-sense. That means more than normal sense. If I could give you an example you'd know what I mean, but I lost the one I wrote about envy and jealousy. The cause of those things is a kind of confusion or lack of sense. Yeah, when the obvious truth is presented, what its absense caused fades away. Easy.

OK. I thought you meant that boredom was a spiritual disease. You get top marks for muddying waters and memory loss. Not great qualities in a would-be teacher of 'everyone'.

Moving on. Until the next time...

I've never relied on muddying the waters. I find it base, unbecoming and undignified. *that moment when part of your life is exactly like the first few paragraphs of the Apology* kind of a dream come true. I must be doing something right.

"Seeing the world as it is is quite a task isn't it?"

Probably the hardest thing a body can do in an on-going way.

Pretty much impossible to do in an on-going way.

Gotta work at it and take the clear moments as they come.

And in the 'un-clear' moments work to be as skeptical of your own assessments as you should be of that being assessed.

That is: keep your manure detector in working order.

I'll try. Sometimes I like the bullshitters. Out of manure comes the sublime. It might not've come if it weren't for the bullshitters around here.

.




Q - The most interesting philosophical thing I've ever heard?


A - Who am I?





.

"Sometimes I like the bullshitters.

Wouldn't trust them farther than I could throw them, but -- sure -- I like 'em too.

But not the polymaths (we got a couple or three of those here)...know-it-all dicks, each and every one (and none nearly as bright as they believe, or have been told, they are).

henry quirk wrote:"Sometimes I like the bullshitters.

Wouldn't trust them farther than I could throw them, but -- sure -- I like 'em too.

But not the polymaths (we got a couple or three of those here)...know-it-all dicks, each and every one (and none nearly as bright as they believe, or have been told, they are).

Dude, then don't honor them with that title. Know-it-all should do the trick

Know-it-all should do the trick"

Nope. They're dicks, each and every one.

henry quirk wrote: But not the polymaths (we got a couple or three of those here)...know-it-all dicks, each and every one (and none nearly as bright as they believe, or have been told, they are).

It's a very difficult thing to fake.

"It's a very difficult thing to fake."

Oh, they're not faking anything...these dicks really are smart and knowledgeable and whatnot...I got no problem with that...hand-in-hand, however, with the 'polymathy', comes the 'pope complex' ('I is infallible')...makes them annoying, cuz they're not (infallible).

henry quirk wrote:Know-it-all should do the trick"

Nope. They're dicks, each and every one.

Lol
Know-it-all dicks?

uwot wrote:

henry quirk wrote: But not the polymaths (we got a couple or three of those here)...know-it-all dicks, each and every one (and none nearly as bright as they believe, or have been told, they are).

It's a very difficult thing to fake.

Now THAT is interesting to me. I honestly can't tell if it's difficult to fake or not. I mean, I feel as though I personally can tell quite well when soneone is bright or not. But then I remember there is a massive audience (my mom included, so I don't intend to insult) who listen to Rush Limbaugh. The assumption is that people listen because they think he's right and they think he's right because they think he's smart.

Can we all easily tell the difference between genuine and counterfeit intelligence, or, if I may be so bold, between philosophy and sophistry?

henry quirk wrote:...hand-in-hand, however, with the 'polymathy', comes the 'pope complex' ('I is infallible')...makes them annoying, cuz they're not (infallible).

Well, I am acutely aware that no one likes a smartarse, but it seems to me that the people that claim infallibility are generally the ones that don't know anything; certainly on this forum.

I hear knowledge is supposed to be infallible.

Jaded Sage wrote:I hear knowledge is supposed to be infallible.

It very much depends on how you define knowledge.