artisticsolution,
I am not sure what you mean?
A Philosophy of Mind
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
-
artisticsolution
- Posts: 1933
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
artisticsolution,
Your words are not hastily to be dismissed.. Prejudice is not restricted to lack of knowledge alone it extends to lack of feeling.
When a clock has to be fixed the process is to let the wheels of the clock run down; but we living human beings must be repaired while in motion; just imagine changing the wheels as they revolve.
Your words are not hastily to be dismissed.. Prejudice is not restricted to lack of knowledge alone it extends to lack of feeling.
When a clock has to be fixed the process is to let the wheels of the clock run down; but we living human beings must be repaired while in motion; just imagine changing the wheels as they revolve.
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
artisticsolution,
Sophists teach mere opinions. Their wisdom might be compare to someone who studies the tempers and needs of a wild animal and learns how to control them and knows the meaning of their numerous sounds and, knows what will quiet them or enrage them. They perfect this study and call it knowledge, wisdom, and call good that in which the wild beast takes pleasure in and call bad that which the wild beast has a loathing for.
Your statements are mere hypotheses! You don’t know these people you are talking about your merely feeding on opinion and bad opinion at that. You have summed up a mass of people put them into perspective cubical and state that this group speaks like this and that group speaks like this but sometimes depending on the status in the group speaks badl or good. You have no idea who speaks what and who doesn’t. Opinion is mere believing it is so.
These are the same beliefs, which people think of philosophy originate from sophists who rush in uninvited, and are always abusing and finding fault in persons instead of the topic and nothing can be more unbecoming in philosophers than this.
There is a perfection all philosophers have to reach and not to fall short of and that is the point of mutual affinities, not until then will the pursuit of knowledge and truth have any value.
Sophists teach mere opinions. Their wisdom might be compare to someone who studies the tempers and needs of a wild animal and learns how to control them and knows the meaning of their numerous sounds and, knows what will quiet them or enrage them. They perfect this study and call it knowledge, wisdom, and call good that in which the wild beast takes pleasure in and call bad that which the wild beast has a loathing for.
Your statements are mere hypotheses! You don’t know these people you are talking about your merely feeding on opinion and bad opinion at that. You have summed up a mass of people put them into perspective cubical and state that this group speaks like this and that group speaks like this but sometimes depending on the status in the group speaks badl or good. You have no idea who speaks what and who doesn’t. Opinion is mere believing it is so.
These are the same beliefs, which people think of philosophy originate from sophists who rush in uninvited, and are always abusing and finding fault in persons instead of the topic and nothing can be more unbecoming in philosophers than this.
There is a perfection all philosophers have to reach and not to fall short of and that is the point of mutual affinities, not until then will the pursuit of knowledge and truth have any value.
-
artisticsolution
- Posts: 1933
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Hi Barbara,
B: Prejudice is not restricted to lack of knowledge alone it extends to lack of feeling
AS: You are correct, and sometimes our feelings are not based on truth, sometimes they are.
B:Your statements are mere hypotheses! You don’t know these people you are talking about your merely feeding on opinion and bad opinion at that.
AS: Maybe I am wrong about their purpose for not accepting Rev. Wrights explanation, I will give you that. But I am not wrong in believing his explanation of the jargon he uses in his speeches. If he says that it was taken "out of context" then I have to take him on his word or call him a liar. If I choose to call him a liar what evidence do I have and what are my motives? If all the evidence supports the fact that a particular brand of jargon is spoken among those who belong to his way of life, why would I have reason to doubt his word or his patriotism? No, I choose to believe him until the evidence proves otherwise. Anger is not evidence enough to convict a man of murder and it is not evidence enough to convict him of being unpatriotic.
B: You have no idea who speaks what and who doesn’t.
AS: I do have an idea of who speaks what and who doesn't. I listened to Rev. Wright give his explanation about the misunderstanding. I also listened to conservatives try to spin it, for what purpose I can only speculate, which is wrong and thank you for pointing that out to me.
B: Prejudice is not restricted to lack of knowledge alone it extends to lack of feeling
AS: You are correct, and sometimes our feelings are not based on truth, sometimes they are.
B:Your statements are mere hypotheses! You don’t know these people you are talking about your merely feeding on opinion and bad opinion at that.
AS: Maybe I am wrong about their purpose for not accepting Rev. Wrights explanation, I will give you that. But I am not wrong in believing his explanation of the jargon he uses in his speeches. If he says that it was taken "out of context" then I have to take him on his word or call him a liar. If I choose to call him a liar what evidence do I have and what are my motives? If all the evidence supports the fact that a particular brand of jargon is spoken among those who belong to his way of life, why would I have reason to doubt his word or his patriotism? No, I choose to believe him until the evidence proves otherwise. Anger is not evidence enough to convict a man of murder and it is not evidence enough to convict him of being unpatriotic.
B: You have no idea who speaks what and who doesn’t.
AS: I do have an idea of who speaks what and who doesn't. I listened to Rev. Wright give his explanation about the misunderstanding. I also listened to conservatives try to spin it, for what purpose I can only speculate, which is wrong and thank you for pointing that out to me.
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
-
artisticsolution
- Posts: 1933
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Barbara Brooks wrote:artisticsolution,
Whatever you feel about Rev. Wright is your opinion but when you take a group of everyday regular people and because of their color put them into stereotyped boxes of "good and bad English" speakers because of your mere assumption is a disservice to any person.
Oh, now I see what you are talking about. We are in agreement. I don't think we can stereotype "good and bad English" either. That is what I was arguing in the "Good and bad English" thread written in the general philosophy section of this forum. I had just assumed you read that thread and understood what I was saying. It would have helped if I made that clear to begin with...sorry.
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
A good speaker comes on some saying or action of another good speaker impersonate that good, and will not be ashamed of this sort of imitation: most ready they will be to play the part of a good speaker acting firmly and wisely and revolt at opinion.
Harmonies, rhythms should be to discover what are the expressions of a courageous and harmonious life; and when we have found them, we shall adapt the foot and the melody to words having a like spirit, not the words to the base and melody. To say what these rhythms are will be is the speaker’s duty.
Harmonies, rhythms should be to discover what are the expressions of a courageous and harmonious life; and when we have found them, we shall adapt the foot and the melody to words having a like spirit, not the words to the base and melody. To say what these rhythms are will be is the speaker’s duty.
-
artisticsolution
- Posts: 1933
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Hi Barbara,
B:Harmonies, rhythms should be to discover what are the expressions of a courageous and harmonious life; and when we have found them, we shall adapt the foot and the melody to words having a like spirit, not the words to the base and melody. To say what these rhythms are will be is the speaker’s duty.
AS: The problem with misunderstandings lies within the heart of the listener. The speaker may mis-speak but the listener is the one who places a value on the speakers words. This value can be good or bad depending on the heart of the listener. Rushing to a negative opinion is especially curious when the listener knows the heart of the speaker. I believe a listener with a pure heart would give the benefit of the doubt when making judgments. While it is true first impressions are a factor in understanding, it is also true they may be misleading. Better to hear the speakers voice with a positive spin than with a negative one if possible.
B:Harmonies, rhythms should be to discover what are the expressions of a courageous and harmonious life; and when we have found them, we shall adapt the foot and the melody to words having a like spirit, not the words to the base and melody. To say what these rhythms are will be is the speaker’s duty.
AS: The problem with misunderstandings lies within the heart of the listener. The speaker may mis-speak but the listener is the one who places a value on the speakers words. This value can be good or bad depending on the heart of the listener. Rushing to a negative opinion is especially curious when the listener knows the heart of the speaker. I believe a listener with a pure heart would give the benefit of the doubt when making judgments. While it is true first impressions are a factor in understanding, it is also true they may be misleading. Better to hear the speakers voice with a positive spin than with a negative one if possible.
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
-
artisticsolution
- Posts: 1933
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Yes Barbara, I am not refuting your "rights" as I believe you have the right to believe what is your heart's desire. The thing I am curious about is why, when we are faced with an ambiguous or unclear thought, do we have a tendency to think the worst?
I am not pointing fingers, because I am guilty as well. I am simply asking the question. Isn't it better we go against our first instinct if there is a doubt in our minds as to the meaning of the speaker, especially when we have heard their words before and it seems out of character for them to make racial or other negative statements?
The reason I thought you were joking is because of the usual loftiness of your words. I thought you were being playful with me to get me to 'lighten up' and see that I was being unfair and negative against those I may have wrongly accused of being prejudice. I didn't understand that you hadn't read the general section thread because your initial post (that I responded to) was so close in relationship to the "Good English Bad English" thread.
I am not pointing fingers, because I am guilty as well. I am simply asking the question. Isn't it better we go against our first instinct if there is a doubt in our minds as to the meaning of the speaker, especially when we have heard their words before and it seems out of character for them to make racial or other negative statements?
The reason I thought you were joking is because of the usual loftiness of your words. I thought you were being playful with me to get me to 'lighten up' and see that I was being unfair and negative against those I may have wrongly accused of being prejudice. I didn't understand that you hadn't read the general section thread because your initial post (that I responded to) was so close in relationship to the "Good English Bad English" thread.
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
artisticsolution,
A philosopher lives a better life than that of politician. The true philosopher is striving after truth and knowledge and does not care about political civil and domestic broils, nor will they abate until truth is attained. By drawing near, mingling, and becoming incorporate with knowledge we live and grow truly and then, and not till then, will philosophy cease from our travail.
If you think that philosophy is the discernment of these motley politicians, you will not see a well-ordered State.
The philosopher are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. Whereas politicians the administration of public affairs, go about poor and hungering after their' own private advantage, thinking that hence they can snatch the good, order there can never be; for they fight about office and the civil and domestic broils which thusly arises the ruin of themselves and of the whole State.
A philosopher lives a better life than that of politician. The true philosopher is striving after truth and knowledge and does not care about political civil and domestic broils, nor will they abate until truth is attained. By drawing near, mingling, and becoming incorporate with knowledge we live and grow truly and then, and not till then, will philosophy cease from our travail.
If you think that philosophy is the discernment of these motley politicians, you will not see a well-ordered State.
The philosopher are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. Whereas politicians the administration of public affairs, go about poor and hungering after their' own private advantage, thinking that hence they can snatch the good, order there can never be; for they fight about office and the civil and domestic broils which thusly arises the ruin of themselves and of the whole State.
-
Barbara Brooks
- Posts: 1826
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 pm
Sweet blessed knowledge a deeper conception reins. Have we not all seen enough of the craziness and know that politicians there is no champion of justice at whose side they may fight and be saved.
Everything belongs to time, each principle has reign for a certain time. Socrates believed the worthy disciples of philosophy would be perchance some noble and well-educated person, who in the absence of corrupting influences remains devoted to philosophy. Or maybe some grand soul born in a rough city and there may be a gifted few who leave the arts and comes to philosophy --or some who have been restrained, like his friend Theages' for everything in the life of Theages conspired to divert him from philosophy; but ill-health kept him away from politics.
Look back at what took place many years ago. The very hypothesis of Zeno’s inquire of opposites in relation to themselves and the many, on one and many, also what will be the detriment be to each other. If likeness is or is not, what will be the consequence in either case of generation and destruction?
Everything has an opposition. I mean opposite things such as just and unjust, good and evil, and the innumerable other opposites that generated out of opposites.
What comes into being has an opposite, generated out of opposition but that which has no opposition can never be anything but perfect, like the sun every side well-rounded sphere, which from center extends in all directions equally.
Everything belongs to time, each principle has reign for a certain time. Socrates believed the worthy disciples of philosophy would be perchance some noble and well-educated person, who in the absence of corrupting influences remains devoted to philosophy. Or maybe some grand soul born in a rough city and there may be a gifted few who leave the arts and comes to philosophy --or some who have been restrained, like his friend Theages' for everything in the life of Theages conspired to divert him from philosophy; but ill-health kept him away from politics.
Look back at what took place many years ago. The very hypothesis of Zeno’s inquire of opposites in relation to themselves and the many, on one and many, also what will be the detriment be to each other. If likeness is or is not, what will be the consequence in either case of generation and destruction?
Everything has an opposition. I mean opposite things such as just and unjust, good and evil, and the innumerable other opposites that generated out of opposites.
What comes into being has an opposite, generated out of opposition but that which has no opposition can never be anything but perfect, like the sun every side well-rounded sphere, which from center extends in all directions equally.