Philosophy Now Forum

I am now realizing that nameless doesn't seem to be arguing using a critical form of philosophy. Philosophy relies on rational argument, however what you seem to be using to argue is in no means rational. Therefore if we are not arguing using the same rules we can not be said to be playing the same game (philosophy). I therefore would like to ask you why you are here on a philosophy forum, trying to arguing with people who use the rules of philosophy and rational thought when you are clearly not invested in it? You seem to use sophistry and by that I mean "crafted to appear logical while actually representing a falsehood". Sophistry is at odds with philosophy, and therefore at odds with reason and logic. This is why you see so much opposition here. And logically what you are attempting to do is unreasonable, trying to convince people who are interested in applying logic and reason to everything around them that logic and reason is not logical or reasonable. What you are doing is a slap in the face to all of philosophy sir.

You would be better off on a spiritualist or Buddhist website, and might actually get some people who agree with your method of argument and the content to which you argue.

Arising_uk wrote:How can someone else's perspective be crap in your world?

It all seems to go around, doesn't it? Or maybe not, however you see it...

We've already been around this block and I'd rather not be doing it again, the 'cat in the mat' and Schroedinger... Same old thing. I respect your perspective, you cannot respect this one.
What do you want from me? What are you getting from this?
Re-read our old posts.
If Schrodinger's cat is a sticking point with you, here's another, 'superlocality'; 'A' is 'here' and 'there' at the same time, and seem to be inextricably 'connected/entangled' throughout 'time' and 'space'.

later

Dimebag wrote:I am now realizing that nameless doesn't seem to be arguing using a critical form of philosophy. Philosophy relies on rational argument, however what you seem to be using to argue is in no means rational.

At any point in our conversation that you feel capable of philosophically or scientifically refuting anything that I offer, please feel free to do it!
This sort of thing is just lame!
Your limitations are your problem.

Therefore if we are not arguing using the same rules we can not be said to be playing the same game (philosophy).

Please, feel free;
Critical Thinking Mini Lessons
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons.html

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

With all due respect, most folks hanging out on a philosophy site do it for the vanity of thinking themselves philosophers. That is obvious. There is little to no original critical thought!
And when introduced, it is attacked like a virusr in your delicate houses of cards.
Whatever.

I therefore would like to ask you why you are here on a philosophy forum, trying to arguing with people who use the rules of philosophy and rational thought when you are clearly not invested in it?

All I'm hearing is a whimpering sound from someone who cannot understand that there is that which they cannot understand and feels threatened thereby.
You attack my words of truth like beavers flinging their dung at the sun.
I'll even play the traditional philosopher game of debating, formally, any refutation that you can possibly find against anything that I offer. Better than you have failed. How can you refute that which you cannot understand. Flinging little balls of dung... Real philosophical.
Might make a good article for the magazine!
Any time you like.
I don't even care what side I'm on, you can choose!
You cannot prevail with half your ammunition!
The 'head' alone will always fail, as it has failed the West, without the balance of the 'heart'. That too is philosophy.
If you take a rod and lold it before you endwise, it will look like a 'dot'. Swing it 90 degrees and it is a 'line'. Same rod is a dot and a line at the same moment! You are stuck arguing that it is and can only be as you perceive it, a 'line'.
Fine, whatever, it's a line.
After all, that is true!

You seem to use sophistry and by that I mean "crafted to appear logical while actually representing a falsehood". Sophistry is at odds with philosophy,

Whatever works for you. The effort is purile and sterile.
Stand like a man and refute something!
Einstein said that "all the experiments in the world, ever, cannot prove anything that he has found to be true, but it takes only one experiment to prove it 'false'!"
You looking to rustle up a mob and make me go away? Is that what you must resort to?

I'll tell you what, I'm a fair guy.
Perhaps I am totally out of my mind and am truly in the 'wrong place' (you can understand that concept, I'm sure), make a petition, get names, dates and incidentals and shove it up your ass! Greenhorn! (just kidding... *__- went with the flow)

and therefore at odds with reason and logic. This is why you see so much opposition here.

No, son, I'll show you why you are so opposed to everything I say;
" Again and again some people in the crowd wake up,
They have no ground in the crowd,
And they emerge according to much broader laws.
They carry strange customs with them
And demand room for bold gestures.
The future speaks ruthlessly through them."
Rainer Maria Rilke

"Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past."
-Maurice Maeterlinck

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer

And logically what you are attempting to do is unreasonable,

Your inability to understand what I offer is extended to everyone here? I think not. Ego loves company when threatened.
'Reason' is in the eye of the observer!

trying to convince people who are interested in applying logic and reason to everything around them that logic and reason is not logical or reasonable.

Perhaps you should read the links that I offered on 'critical thought'. There is motr to it than 'logic and reason' alone. Until you understand the rest, you are weaponless in a real debate.
It is your philosophical responsibility to undertand that against which you wish to ague, no? And if you can't, find something else that you can.
Philosophically, you are obligated to accept, however tentatively, that which has not been refuted.
You are not required to 'feel comfortable' with it. That is integtrity.

What you are doing is a slap in the face to all of philosophy sir.

Oh! The self-righteous wail of indignation as the flung dung flies!
The affront! How DARE me!?!
*__-
That you take it upon yourself to speak for all philosophers everywhere, and all 'wannabe's' (wink, wink), tells me volumes of your 'ability' for original critical thought.

"Philosophers constantly see the method of science before their eyes and are irresistibly tempted to ask and to answer questions in the way science does. This tendency is the real source of metaphysics and leads philosophers into complete darkness." -Wittgenstein

"...philosophers and not "philosophologists", a term coined by Robert Pirsig ("Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", "Lila") to denote people who study other people's philosophy but cannot do philosophy themselves. He also says that most people who consider themselves philosophers are actually philosophologists. The difference between a philosopher and a philosophologist is like the difference between an art and aesthetics; one does and the other studies what the other does and theorizes about it."

“Genuinely successful theories interconnect information from previously disparate areas of experience,” said Adolf Grünbaum, the Andrew Mellon Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh.

For what it's worth, for whatever the ego allows...

You would be better off on a spiritualist or Buddhist website, and might actually get some people who agree with your method of argument and the content to which you argue.

Thank you, I'll take it under advisement.
So, you would rather see me leave, be sensored, rather than simply 'ignoring' me? How Xtian of you!
Burn the heretic! Banish him!
Hahahaha!

No true philosopher would ever block any source of inquiry/lmowledge.

"Charles Sanders Peirce required that the first and primary obligation of any philosopher or scientist is to do nothing that would block inquiry..."

A philosopher does not banish that which a potrential source of data, and EVERYTHING is that!
There is obviously more to philosophy then 'reason/logic' alone, and you aren't getting it.
All is well...

Id suggest that if my words disturb you or anyone else and you feel that you must, the 'ignore' function works great! Trims the background noise.
If everyone here 'ignores' me when I post, I'll get tired and leave. Simple.
Please, feel free...
(It'd take more than you to kill this messenger!)

I simply returned the 'respect' that you offered me.
Thank you anyway for your hospitality.
are we done yet?
You couldn't understand enough in all that I wrote, so little, that you weren't even able to pick at least one point and offer an intelligent analysis/critique.
Dude, call me when you grow up into a Dollarbag!

The great Acarya Maitreya says in his Saptadasa-bhumi-sastra-yogacarya:

"Before accepting a challenge for a debate, one should consider whether his opponent is
a person worthy of carrying on debate through the process of proposition (siddhanta), reason (hetu), example (udaharana), etc. He should, before proceeding there, consider whether the debate will exercise any good influence on his opponent, the umpire, and the audience. But first of all, he should consider whether a debate - even won - would not bring him more harm than benefit."

Thanks for the opportunity to spend those hours in contemplation while I carefully crafted my replies for you, though.
I just don't think that it is going work out between us, anyway, so...

..nameless.. wrote: At any point in our conversation that you feel capable of philosophically or scientifically refuting anything that I offer, please feel free to do it!
This sort of thing is just lame!
Your limitations are your problem.

Do you deny that until my last post I was focussing purely on the argument and the logic entailed? Only once you start using ideas which effectively come down to, "I can be wrong but still right, but when you are right you are really wrong", do I then begin to turn the microscope on your way of reasoning and arguing, which you can't deny is not typical of most philosophical points of view. How would you describe your view of reality, what category does it come under, or if no category describes it, which categories is it sandwiched between? My limitations to understanding your philosophical position are not only my own, but yours too, as by posing a position such as you are posing, you need to convince people of it. In order to do this, you must speak the language of the people you are trying to convince, the language of logic and reason. And you must do so clearly and conscisely without ambiguity, otherwise you are condemning your idea to the dumpster of history.

With all due respect, most folks hanging out on a philosophy site do it for the vanity of thinking themselves philosophers. That is obvious. There is little to no original critical thought!
And when introduced, it is attacked like a virusr in your delicate houses of cards.
Whatever.

With all due respect indeed, I think we are beyond that now. I personally don't care for others knowing I enjoy philosophy. No one knows I enjoy philosophy in my life, it is a personal pursuit and that is all it is. You draw conclusions you are not privileged to make, without such knowledge.

If you take a rod and lold it before you endwise, it will look like a 'dot'. Swing it 90 degrees and it is a 'line'. Same rod is a dot and a line at the same moment! You are stuck arguing that it is and can only be as you perceive it, a 'line'.
Fine, whatever, it's a line.
After all, that is true!

What you are arguing about are perspectives, and when there are many different ways to look at something yes, you can conclude that something from one perspective might appear one way and from another appear completely different. But there are times where there is only one correct way to view something, and we must concede when this occurs that there is logically only one correct answer.

Whatever works for you. The effort is purile and sterile.
Stand like a man and refute something!
Einstein said that "all the experiments in the world, ever, cannot prove anything that he has found to be true, but it takes only one experiment to prove it 'false'!"
You looking to rustle up a mob and make me go away? Is that what you must resort to?

I am arguing that you are saying something while at the same time, not really saying anything. What can we gain from the idea that everything is truth, even falsities? Please try to sell the idea to me, I wish I could like it but there doesn't seem to be anything to grasp hold of which I can use to broaden my view of the world.

Philosophically, you are obligated to accept, however tentatively, that which has not been refuted.
You are not required to 'feel comfortable' with it. That is integtrity.

So tell me, if I do not refute your arguments, what is it that I am accepting, can you make it clear for me?

That you take it upon yourself to speak for all philosophers everywhere, and all 'wannabe's' (wink, wink), tells me volumes of your 'ability' for original critical thought.

Admittedly I spoke not for the entire philosophical community but for myself. But you must admit, your way of describing your ideas is non typical, I think, to the detriment of your idea's accessibility and acceptance.

No true philosopher would ever block any source of inquiry/

No they wouldn't, but surely they would oppose any ideas which, on one hand, created rules for which it believes are supreme, but on the other hand, did not follow those same rules.

if my words disturb you or anyone else and you feel that you must, the 'ignore' function works great! Trims the background noise.
If everyone here 'ignores' me when I post, I'll get tired and leave. Simple.
Please, feel free...
(It'd take more than you to kill this messenger!)

That is not what I wish for. I think you have some worthwhile ideas, however they seem tied up in contradictions, which don't always go down well. If you could clarify those contradictions maybe it would do your ideas a service.

"Before accepting a challenge for a debate, one should consider whether his opponent is a person worthy of carrying on debate through the process of proposition (siddhanta), reason (hetu), example (udaharana), etc. He should, before proceeding there, consider whether the debate will exercise any good influence on his opponent, the umpire, and the audience. But first of all, he should consider whether a debate - even won - would not bring him more harm than benefit."

Thank you. I will remember this. I would argue though, that you have put up a wall which disallows anyone to refute your ideas. If an idea is irrefutable is it even worth trying to discuss? If I can't even try to disprove your idea, is there really an idea to disprove?