Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek Prime wrote:Reli, don't edit your post to change your mind on the existence of ghosts, when you've already claimed that children are troubled by them in the here and now, in there closets, no less.... Especially when you have hordes of knowing dead people who would back those claims! I'm am defenseless against such odds, and yield....

If you read the edit, you'll see that it is in no way a change of mind, but serves to further clarify what I said originally: that belief in the (non)existence of ghosts is by no means obvious, and is instead arrived at through inquiry. We (you included, no doubt) were all scared of ghosts or monsters as children for a reason: their nonexistence is not obvious.

As for the "knowing dead people," if you wish to so flippantly dismiss Kant, Aristotle, Galileo, Einstein, be my guest. You will find it costs much and buys little. If, however, you reread what I wrote, I think you'll come to the realization that I was not speaking solely of ghosts, but just about everything you hold to be true. And then, just maybe, you'll understand what I.C. and I (and thedoc, most likely) hold to be basic truths: you ought not dismiss what you don't understand, and understanding is bought through study and experience.

By the way, yielding in face of the overwhelming epistemological odds these "knowing dead people" have stacked against you was wise. That said, I never said you couldn't dispute them; only that it would be ridiculous (and irrational) to dismiss them without first understanding their positions.

What a smug ass, to assume I came to my conclusions in a vacuum. You flippantly dismiss Diogenes, Al Ma'arri, Schopenhauer, Zapffe, Camus and many others (more knowing dead people), whilst criticizing me for neglecting your favourites (which you did not specify til now). Let's not play "my daddy's better than yours", because you were influenced by different past thinkers than I. I concede nothing, save my earlier sarcasm.

Anyways, I'm ending this conversation here, and I'll tell you why. At least thedoc, while he disagrees with me, was considerate and interested in my position without feeling the need to attack. With you, it's all ego and assumption. Enjoy your academic career. Your students won't, should you end up teaching the poor sods.

DP wrote:

My disposition is still to reject the life-system, it's creator, and the reason he put me here.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Because...?

DP wrote:

Because I can. Because I do. I owe God nothing.

I wasn't contesting your right to do as you please. I was asking if your rejection of God was based on some sort of reasoning, or if it was just arbitrary.

Can you clarify?

Dalek,
I notice you have yet to directly address a single criticism I've offered. I wonder if that's because you can't or just because you'd rather play the part of the aggrieved party and defend yourself against imagined slights to your honor.

Dalek Prime wrote:What a smug ass, to assume I came to my conclusions in a vacuum. You flippantly dismiss Diogenes, Al Ma'arri, Schopenhauer, Zapffe, Camus and many others (more knowing dead people), whilst criticizing me for neglecting your favourites (which you did not specify til now).

Kindly show me where I have done any of these things, and I'll happily apologize. Or perhaps you're too busy doing your own assuming to understand what I've written.

As for the "ass" part, guilty as charged, I guess. I'm not inclined to feign interest in shoddy arguments. Smug? You might want to look that one up.

Dalek Prime wrote:Let's not play "my daddy's better than yours", because you were influenced by different past thinkers than I.

What was that about assuming how one has come to a particular set of conclusions?

Dalek Prime wrote: I concede nothing, save my earlier sarcasm.

You recognize your own sarcasm but can't see others'? Unfortunate.

Dalek Prime wrote:Anyways, I'm ending this conversation here, and I'll tell you why. At least thedoc, while he disagrees with me, was considerate and interested in my position without feeling the need to attack.

Uh oh. If that's how easily you give up, you're in for a rough ride. But yes, thedoc's a much gentler interlocutor than me.

Dalek,
A final thought, as I've had a bit more time to reflect on your imagined status as someone aggrieved. Let's revisit your opening words in this thread:

Dalek Prime wrote:Immanuel, what a ridiculous notion that someone has to read and be involved in religion before they may reject the premise

That's hardly the "considerate" and "interested" approach thedoc has shown you, is it? Rather than take the time to understand what I.C. was saying, you did the same thing you accused me of—assumed your interlocutor was saying X rather than Y—and simply dismissed his words as "ridiculous." Is it any wonder that you've been treated in kind?

If you wish to continue the discussion by actually addressing any of the several counters to your position that have been raised, by all means do so. If you're just here to dismiss particular views as "ridiculous" then belly-ache when the same is done to you, well, maybe you're right to bow out. Best of luck to you either way.

Dalek:

You're being a bit goofy, and not a little paranoid here. I have found that ReliStuPhd tends to ask questions sincerely, and to probe other people's beliefs thoughtfully before replying.

As for me, you don't know me either, and nothing I asked you to explain has been asked in a spirit of cynicism.

So instead of strutting and posturing, why not just answer? It's what real philosophers do.

Immanuel Can wrote:Dalek:

You're being a bit goofy, and not a little paranoid here. I have found that ReliStuPhd tends to ask questions sincerely, and to probe other people's beliefs thoughtfully before replying.

As for me, you don't know me either, and nothing I asked you to explain has been asked in a spirit of cynicism.

So instead of strutting and posturing, why not just answer? It's what PRETEND philosophers do.

Why don't you two get a room?

Ah yes...more wit and wisdom in the Hobbes mode....