Philosophy Now Forum

Somewhere... back there... Satyr dropped it. I wuz jus repeet'nit. Was it Popper who characterized the notion as living life void of introversion?

Cor! Blimey! It's come to something when you can't drop the Dasein word in the metaphysics section of a philosophy forum. Especially since there's not a phenomenology section.

Satyr wrote:Why, was it in the dark before?

good question. maybe it depends from whom are you asking it?

it seemed to me that you argue that i have argued something, or am i looking it wrong?

Are you; have you?

so, you are?

Here it is:

But here you are repeating the argument I explained earlier.
The notion that the sentence "The truth is there is no truth" or "There is absolutely no absolute" is based on semantics which projects and presupposes what is nowhere in evidence except in the mind and in the symbols the mind uses to express its abstractions.

so did i wrote those two sentences about truth and absolute? or did i misread your "but here you are.."-sentence? was you just talking to your self, when you said: But here you are repeating the argument I explained earlier.? sorry if i interfered your conversations.

whos argument you have explained earlier?

The person who made it.

who made it? can you give a coded hint or mystical riddle to reveal the person? this is so exciting! almost like christmas. looking forward to you say something.

creativesoul wrote:

Somewhere... back there... Satyr dropped it. I wuz jus repeet'nit. Was it Popper who characterized the notion as living life void of introversion?

Is this what you think Dasein is?

Popper??? I don't think so!

Martin Heidegger is the one who wrote a little tome called Sein und Zeit about it. It's a loverly Sunday morning read.
You will find the meaning of it in there; its called Being and Time in Enlgish
Let me know what you think on Monday!

Question Fart wrote:

Satyr wrote:Why, was it in the dark before?

good question. maybe it depends from whom are you asking it?

Excellent point...perhaps it depends on what you mean?

Question Fart wrote: so, you are?

Am I?

Question Fart wrote:so did i wrote those two sentences about truth and absolute?

Did you wrote them?

Question Fart wrote: or did i misread your "but here you are.."-sentence?

What do you mean by read?

Question Fart wrote:was you just talking to your self, when you said: But here you are repeating the argument I explained earlier.?

Was I, or was you talking to myself?

Question Fart wrote:sorry if i interfered your conversations.

No apologies necessary - sorry you asked.

Question Fart wrote:who made it?

Whose on first?

Question Fart wrote:can you give a coded hint or mystical riddle to reveal the person?

What.

Question Fart wrote:this is so exciting! almost like christmas. looking forward to you say something.

And I'm waiting for me to care and for you to make sense.

Until then, I am truly enjoying the semantics.
This is more like Halloween.

Trick or Treat...and I capitalize both for a reason.

Is this what you think Dasein is?

Popper??? I don't think so!

Martin Heidegger is the one who wrote a little tome called Sein und Zeit about it. It's a loverly Sunday morning read.
You will find the meaning of it in there; its called Being and Time in Enlgish. Let me know what you think on Monday!

Why would you conclude that I think that Karl Popper coined "Dasein" based upon what I had wrote? Popper critiqued Dasein in the basic manner hinted at in my post. I own On The Way To Language, and judging by the number of your responses to me which presuppose that you're somehow privy to my own mental activies, I suggest that you read the opening dialogue.

was you just talking to your self, when you said: But here you are repeating the argument I explained earlier.?

Was I, or was you talking to myself?

you was writing something about truth and absolute, and i thought that you said that i had been argued something about those. i think that there is a misunderstanding about that i have argued anything about truth or absolute. i am reading and questioning what you wiser guys and girls might know about those truth and absolute. or anything. i hope you did not take offence about that. at least, i did not say anything about straw man or anger management. why would i?

Question Fart wrote:you was writing something about truth and absolute, and i thought that you said that i had been argued something about those. i think that there is a misunderstanding about that i have argued anything about truth or absolute.

Finally agreement...only I would rephrase your statement in this way to make it more precise:
'i think that there is a misunderstanding about that i have argued anything.

But here you are.

Question Fart wrote: i am reading and questioning what you wiser guys and girls might know about those truth and absolute.

This ploy aside, I find it pleasing to debate all mythical constructs with those that take them for granted.
For years I conversed with Christians about their "God", but that grew dull, as you can imagine, and recently I've found some relief in debating the secular versions about their Absolute Truths and all the fine examples of it they swear by.

I, for one, offer no truth nor do I enter any discussion dealing with it with any seriousness.
Might as well discuss unicorns with passion.

Of course I do offer a perspective which I do hold to be superior to yours or to any which these fine brilliant, well-educated and rational men, boys and girls, as the case may be, have offered or not...most choose to speak as mouthpieces.
I know about as much about this fabled Truth and Absolute as I do about God or Zeus or one the particle.
I know of its usage and its myth and its power, but nothing of it, as it has never crossed my path, and I fear it shall never do.
Such divine things rarely bother with sinners and losers like me.

But then, when you go to a party where you are told that the proceedings are nearly perfectly complete, and all are awaiting the final missing element, it is understandable if the discussion should turn to deducing what this mysterious persona who is fashionably late will be like: how tall, or fat or smart or handsome he might be.
Some would call him divine, because with his coming the party will be validated, once and for all time...but I still await him/her/it....and I think it a ruse, so i shall not hold my breathe cutting oxygen to my brain, as you fine people have.

Although I can try to fit in by indulging in some gossip, with the girls, and dry speculation, with the boys, about what this mysterious absent stranger is like, I doubt any such creature exists or will ever knock upon the doors; simply because no matter who or what comes in next there will always be someone missing, as the possibilities are endless and no matter what the door is always there to be knocked upon.

Question Fart wrote:or anything. i hope you did not take offence about that.

I've taken about as much offense as I've taken you seriously.
You fill in the blanks as it suits you. You are a creative one, are you not?

Question Fart wrote:at least, i did not say anything about straw man or anger management. why would i?

Indeed, for you are a coy, little question maker, and you say nothing at all at any time.
Well, nothing you can be accused of anyway.

I suggest that besides your communal defenses you acquire some new shields.

But I think you know my state of mind, and how could you not, I've made it perfectly obvious to you, have I not?
If I were to call you stupid then what reason can there be other than the assumption that I've lost myself in raw emotion?
I dare not call a giraffe taller than a squirrel, out of fear of being accused of being short - compensating for my shortcomings.

The "straw man" was delightful.
I've heard it be used about as often as the Latin ad hom... It is usually preceded by a loss of one's tactical advantage.
At other times it is followed with a recitation of height and wealth and sexual exploits and educational credentials.
Rarely is the effect more delicate, like name-droppings and obscure referencing and little word-games with feminine guile.

Here is a better one you might consider using in the future: Bitter. Give it a sexual edge to twist it in...then sit back, close your eyes and imagine the other writhing in pain.
Something subtle, yet distinguishable. Something you and your mates can snicker about in the corner afterwards.

As always, the discussion, if not about someone is always returned to it.
Women just hate to focus on anything else.
What was the thread's topic?
Ah, yes, I remember...something about Truth.

Let me rephrase this, as well, just for clarity:
'What's stopping us from seeing the God?'
Well to that question which presupposes what it pretends to be ignorant of, is up your alley.

But I am troubled, Questioning Fart - why have you abandoned the clever tactic of honest questioning?
I was just getting settled down upon it...making it my own, so to speak.

Please, if you have any further inquiries which speak by saying nothing, feel free to share them, as my story is unending, like existence.
I want you to feel victorious, Question Fart.
I want you to insinuate yourself towards self-esteem.

In other words Mark, nothing Satyr says is true...

creativesoul wrote:In other words Mark, nothing Satyr says is true...

or maybe he or she has a superior view about what means "true"? what could we ever say about that against? maybe we need own superior view to raise our degree of philosophy? is "almighty" superior enough? dialogue between two or more superior views sounds very interesting or what?

Satyr wrote:Finally agreement...only I would rephrase your statement in this way to make it more precise:
'i think that there is a misunderstanding about that i have argued anything.

sounds like your agreement is saying?: i am sorry, i was wrong. but here you are. making better and better new ones. in some degree.

But here you are.
I find it pleasing to debate all mythical constructs with those that take them for granted.
For years I conversed with Christians about their "God", but that grew dull, as you can imagine, and recently I've found some relief in debating the secular versions about their Absolute Truths and all the fine examples of it they swear by.

whats your version about the absolute truth then?

I, for one, offer no truth nor do I enter any discussion dealing with it with any seriousness.
Might as well discuss unicorns with passion.

its nice to hear how serious you are making philosophical discussion. and that you wont fanatically stone yourself to death if you even say the word truth. by the lonely way, i think that the best comedians are the most serious minded ones. what you think of that? boobs!

Of course I do offer a perspective which I do hold to be superior to yours or to any which these fine brilliant, well-educated and rational men, boys and girls, as the case may be, have offered or not...most choose to speak as mouthpieces.

of course you stick to your superior view from its points of view? 10 points and jurys favorite? back to my home village, i was every year miss corny! for that my godfather gave me rings with fingers and once i got a whole horse! still, only boys got tommy guns. i had only a violin full of bullet holes. still, most torturing noise it gave!

I know about as much about this fabled Truth and Absolute as I do about God or Zeus or one the particle.
I know of its usage and its myth and its power, but nothing of it, as it has never crossed my path, and I fear it shall never do.
Such divine things rarely bother with sinners and losers like me.

fear no more, you have seen the superior view or what!?

But then, when you go to a party

have you tried philosophical parties or milder ones like stone age-themed conservative tea parties? one was hugging a horse, the other tried to live without eating, third one hammering people with poker..full house of superior people like you! you would like them as yourself. lots of common superiority to talk.

You fill in the blanks as it suits you. You are a creative one, are you not?

i am afraid that not so creative as you, butt i try my best, ass seriously. can i play with the straw man, can i!? i promise to use only blanks and earmuffs. my tommy gun is so dusty that you cant say its color anymore. pink.

Here is a better one you might consider using in the future: Bitter.

nah. Give it a sexual edge to twist it in...then sit back, close your eyes and imagine the other writhing in pain. Something subtle, yet distinguishable. Something you and your mates can snicker about in the corner afterwards. the word you were looking for was: "Sublimation". quite an old. "so quarter year". oldies like "back to the subject", "women are from venus", "my ghost writer did the neverending story" or "i read you as my classical tactics book for nannies"..

As always, the discussion, if not about someone is always returned to it.
Women just hate to focus on anything else.
What was the thread's topic?
Ah, yes, I remember...something about Truth.

Let me rephrase this, as well, just for clarity:
'What's stopping us from seeing the God?'
Well to that question which presupposes what it pretends to be ignorant of, is up your alley.

But I am troubled, Questioning Fart - why have you abandoned the clever tactic of honest questioning?
I was just getting settled down upon it...making it my own, so to speak.

Please, if you have any further inquiries which speak by saying nothing, feel free to share them, as my story is unending, like existence.
I want you to feel victorious, Question Fart.
I want you to insinuate yourself towards self-esteem.

about your sentence: Well to that question which presupposes what it pretends to be ignorant of, is up your alley, from where do you think those questions and presuppositions are dragged from? am i visitor in your "alley" too?

I like this phasing in and out of literacy...

.




What is stopping us from seeing the truth?


It is the same thing that is allowing us to conceive the question.

It is the same thing that allows us to formulate the question.



What is stopping us from seeing the truth?


Ego.






It is interesting...ego used to be pronounced egg-o.


Which is more reflective of it's function & origin.





The ego is the thing that separates us from animals.

It's a cover, or umbrella.


Where animals are defenseless against a rainstorm we are able to create this shelter.

Yet it is this very same shelter that keeps the rain off of us that precludes us from experiencing the rain.


The actual rain of reality passing through us.





........................













...................









.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.




What is stopping us from seeing the truth?


It is the same thing that is allowing us to conceive the question.

It is the same thing that allows us to formulate the question.



What is stopping us from seeing the truth?


Ego.



.

The Ego is the thing that makes anyone think that there is any such thing as truth.
Truth is only what does and does not satisfy the human mind.

When one mind recognises that another mind does not see the truth in the same way as he, THEN he asks "what stop's us from seeing the truth". WHat he REALLY means is "why doesn't everyone else see the world as I do?"

Person A has his truth, person B has his truth. They both believe that truth is really out there (which is false), and they are confused by the lack of coherence between truth and reality; truth a and truth b; the lack of correspendence between one set of hypostesizations and another.

Get this: THERE IS NO: "THE TRUTH"

chaz wyman wrote: The Ego is the thing that makes anyone think that there is any such thing as truth.
Truth is only what does and does not satisfy the human mind.

does that or not satisfy your mind?

Mark Question wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: The Ego is the thing that makes anyone think that there is any such thing as truth.
Truth is only what does and does not satisfy the human mind.

does that or not satisfy your mind?

It is a satisfactory explanation of the myth of truth yes.