Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote:If there were no humans, there would be no problems, so sayth the critic of humans, neglecting to mention that without a world there would also be no problems, so what’s so evil about destroying the world?

Hobbes’ wrote:Nothing. Objectively destroying the world is neither good nor evil.

And you say this knowing that people live in the world.

A_Seagull wrote:

Walker wrote:[

Is truth created by mind, or is truth recognized by mind?

Truth is classified by mind and duly labelled.

Like me, you misspell. Labeled, and perhaps, also dully?

Walker wrote:

Walker wrote:If there were no humans, there would be no problems, so sayth the critic of humans, neglecting to mention that without a world there would also be no problems, so what’s so evil about destroying the world?

Hobbes’ wrote:Nothing. Objectively destroying the world is neither good nor evil.

And you say this knowing that people live in the world.

And you ask this pretending to know the meaning of objective?

Good and Evil is about assigning values. Think it over.

Walker wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:

Walker wrote:[

Is truth created by mind, or is truth recognized by mind?

Truth is classified by mind and duly labelled.

Like me, you misspell. Labeled, and perhaps, also dully?

Humour will not win any arguments.

Truth is indeed and artefact of the mind, valued against human interests. When you figure this out you will be free of your medieval superstitions.

duplicate

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Humour will not win any arguments.

Truth is indeed and artefact of the mind, valued against human interests. When you figure this out you will be free of your medieval superstitions.

Humour?

Perhaps you give me too much credit.

I just made a simple statement of fact, worded appropriately so that A_Seagull would not think that I was a hypocritical nit-picker, since my spelling isn’t always up to snuff.

Apparently you hear humor with your objective ears, along with those artifacts.

You’re up to your projections again.

Or,

Could it simply be that my humor is subtle and dry, like fine wine?
(Possibly ... you just may be be a connoisseur of the good, and not even know it yet.)

You should put that in your data base and ruminate, you Objective Thinker you.

(Other than that, you make some assertions unsupported by reasoning. And that’s okay. I feel that eventually you will work yourself up to some sound reasoning.)

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Humour will not win any arguments.

Truth is indeed and artefact of the mind, valued against human interests. When you figure this out you will be free of your medieval superstitions.

Humour?

Perhaps you give me too much credit.

I just made a simple statement of fact, worded appropriately so that A_Seagull would not think that I was a hypocritical nit-picker, since my spelling isn’t always up to snuff.

How disingenuous of you. Had you pedantically nit picked, AND answered the post I would have been more impressed, but you ONLY nit picked.
But this is you all over. You don't read posts, and anything you don't like you ignore and wax lyrical with bullshit. I think you might be on the wrong forum. The clues is in the word "philosophy".

I don't give a rat's nadgers about your spelling. Why not engage with the topic?

HexHammer wrote:It's clearly stated that philosophy in itself isn't the path to truth

Hex. First of all, as you see I took only part of what you wrote. I think what I write leaves your intended meaning unaffected, and it’s the part I want to comment on.

I don’t know where it’s stated, but I agree. I think if one has the capacity to be a student of philosophy, that pursing this will prepare the mind to perceive objective reality. And I would define objective reality to be nature unobscured by ignorance and its cousins, desire and attachment.

Once one scientifically understands that when one can get as close as possible to perception of unobscured reality, unobscured by the limitations of sensory reception and processing, brought about by clearing obstructions to the sensory reception and the processing … well then one knows truth. What one knows is in accord with reality.

Many fields train those with sufficient capacity to perceive unobscured reality. The sciences you mention, military training, self-enquiry, yoga, and so on.

If one has the capacity, one should work in the medical field. By all means, no matter the cost, even if you have to borrow. That gives real relief to human suffering … to endless human suffering, that can end.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Humour will not win any arguments.

Truth is indeed and artefact of the mind, valued against human interests. When you figure this out you will be free of your medieval superstitions.

Humour?

Perhaps you give me too much credit.

I just made a simple statement of fact, worded appropriately so that A_Seagull would not think that I was a hypocritical nit-picker, since my spelling isn’t always up to snuff.

How disingenuous of you. Had you pedantically nit picked, AND answered the post I would have been more impressed, but you ONLY nit picked.
But this is you all over. You don't read posts, and anything you don't like you ignore and wax lyrical with bullshit. I think you might be on the wrong forum. The clues is in the word "philosophy".

I don't give a rat's nadgers about your spelling. Why not engage with the topic?

I see you opt for the connoisseur option. You choose wisely. How could you not? We are the same, sometimes indignant, sometimes not.

Hobbsy, what I write is brimming with topic and philosophy. Can't you see it man? It's staring you right in the face. That I am here is proof that I am, so I must be here, and here in the mysteries is where I belong. I’m comfortable, aren’t you? It’s proper inference, aka sound reasoning, and as sound reasoning relies on concepts in much the same way that language relies on concepts. Proper reasoning is philosophy.

Think about that next time you try to pass off a random unsupported assertion, my friend. Though, you have given me cause to pause and reconsider parsnips. I mean, people who love them swear by them. Maybe your recipe is the one, but with memory of that vile taste, the pause continues on, as I’m not seeing much to inspire me to prepare the dish.

Twinkies, love em. Eat them very infrequently.

So get serious anytime, and I'm right there with you.

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:
Humour?

Perhaps you give me too much credit.

I just made a simple statement of fact, worded appropriately so that A_Seagull would not think that I was a hypocritical nit-picker, since my spelling isn’t always up to snuff.

How disingenuous of you. Had you pedantically nit picked, AND answered the post I would have been more impressed, but you ONLY nit picked.
But this is you all over. You don't read posts, and anything you don't like you ignore and wax lyrical with bullshit. I think you might be on the wrong forum. The clues is in the word "philosophy".

I don't give a rat's nadgers about your spelling. Why not engage with the topic?

I see you opt for the connoisseur option. You choose wisely. How could you not? We are the same, sometimes indignant, sometimes not.

Hobbsy, what I write is brimming with topic and philosophy. Can't you see it man? It's staring you right in the face. That I am here is proof that I am, so I must be here, and here in the mysteries is where I belong. I’m comfortable, aren’t you? It’s proper inference, aka sound reasoning, and as sound reasoning relies on concepts in much the same way that language relies on concepts. Proper reasoning is philosophy.

Think about that next time you try to pass off a random unsupported assertion, my friend. Though, you have given me cause to pause and reconsider parsnips. I mean, people who love them swear by them. Maybe your recipe is the one, but with memory of that vile taste, the pause continues on, as I’m not seeing much to inspire me to prepare the dish.

Twinkies, love em. Eat them very infrequently.

So get serious anytime, and I'm right there with you.

When are you going to address the thread?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:When are you going to address the thread?

Well huff and puff. (that’s humor for your dwindling indignation.)

I think the urgent question is, when are you going to get serious and start offering up some philosophy?

Perhaps you should put on your thinking cap and read the thread again, beginning to end. Everything I have written addresses the thread.

I know what you mean by “address,” but when you think about it …
(I know, I know. Two cents.)

Getting serious … The thread is like life. Objective You can excise any part of the whole and examine it isolate from the whole, and demand to know why this part that you hold apart from the whole, does not fit your vision of ... Life.

That addresses the thread, in the context of Philosophy. Do you see?

Now if you feel the need to read all that I have written and takeout any particular thing in context of the whole, and in context of the threads in which the whole appears, and the forum where they were written, under the rubric of Philosophy, you do that, and I predict you’ll be be hearing the music of philosophy.

How dule a path. (I mean, dualistic.)

Or, you could just listen as its played. Surrender to the music, as they say.

Walker wrote:

HexHammer wrote:It's clearly stated that philosophy in itself isn't the path to truth

Hex. First of all, as you see I took only part of what you wrote. I think what I write leaves your intended meaning unaffected, and it’s the part I want to comment on.

I don’t know where it’s stated, but I agree. I think if one has the capacity to be a student of philosophy, that pursing this will prepare the mind to perceive objective reality. And I would define objective reality to be nature unobscured by ignorance and its cousins, desire and attachment.

Once one scientifically understands that when one can get as close as possible to perception of unobscured reality, unobscured by the limitations of sensory reception and processing, brought about by clearing obstructions to the sensory reception and the processing … well then one knows truth. What one knows is in accord with reality.

Many fields train those with sufficient capacity to perceive unobscured reality. The sciences you mention, military training, self-enquiry, yoga, and so on.

If one has the capacity, one should work in the medical field. By all means, no matter the cost, even if you have to borrow. That gives real relief to human suffering … to endless human suffering, that can end.

Lots of fancy words, but this is mere hot air. If you are really that smart to understand what you are saying youself, then tell me when you have understood the deeper meaning of this:

Story of the 2 Garbage Men
I have a brilliant doctor friend, who uncritically told me a story he heard in a auditorium filled with fellow doctors at Panum (danish educational institute ..or something)

This story he told me I will propose as a challenge to this forum.
2 garbage men, who had been in the buisness for 2 decades, who had sufferd foul odeurs through out their career, took on a vacation to Turkey and went to the perfume streets.
As they walked the one would become ill, and in the end fell to the ground. The helpful perfume sellers would aid the poor man with their smelling salts, but only making him go to a deeper coma.
The other garbage man would realize it was the thick odour in the street that caused the problem, and pulled his friend out to cleaner air, which helped and he would awaken from the coma.

Conclusion: each their scent.

Jaded Sage wrote:...

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

http://skepdic.com/russell.html

I'd argue that even he has a somewhat narrow view of philosophy. He doesn't even really mention how philosophy results in the perfection of character. I fully disagree that no one can answer these questions so narrowly described as "philosophical." We've just yet to be creative enough. But I do think this will point those around here in a somewhat more accurate direction regarding the nature of what philosophy actually is.

Thank you, Jaded Sage. By and large I agree with you.

Walker wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:[

Truth is classified by mind and duly labelled.

Like me, you misspell. Labeled, and perhaps, also dully?

I do misspell, yes , but I also have a spell checker! And no spelling mistakes here!


label
/ˈleɪb(ə)l/
verb
past tense: labelled; past participle: labelled
attach a label to (something).
"she labelled the parcels neatly, writing the addresses in capital letters"


duly
/ˈdjuːli/
adverb
adverb: duly
in accordance with what is required or appropriate; following proper procedure or arrangement.
"a document duly signed and authorized by the inspector"

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:When are you going to address the thread?

Well huff and puff. (that’s humor for your dwindling indignation.).

PLONK!