Philosophy Now Forum

lancek4 wrote:I have said nothing of students or of being smarter. If you listened to Z then you might have more fuel for our disagreement.

I do not necessarily agree with n or z, but I understand the issue and how they are addressing it.

lancek4 wrote:Oh and I only have padawan learners. No freinds.

lancek4 wrote:I have said nothing of students or of being smarter. If you listened to Z then you might have more fuel for our disagreement.

I do not necessarily agree with n or z, but I understand the issue and how they are addressing it.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I have said nothing of students or of being smarter. If you listened to Z then you might have more fuel for our disagreement.

I do not necessarily agree with n or z, but I understand the issue and how they are addressing it.

And I quote:

lancek4 wrote:Oh and I only have padawan learners. No freinds.

And that was during the time we were discussing Truth. So what was that you were saying?

And it was implied just a few posts up when you, in so many words, said that AS and I, or many others for that matter, didn't understand N, but you did! As if you could possibly know that, in truth!

I've never directly indicated that I believe that I'm smarter than anyone in this forum. And if I did so indirectly, and it was called to my attention, I'd apologize, because I believe it'd be warranted.

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I have said nothing of students or of being smarter. If you listened to Z then you might have more fuel for our disagreement.

I do not necessarily agree with n or z, but I understand the issue and how they are addressing it.

This does not work

http://youtu.be/HiFV-xtZOE

Neither does this

http://youtube.com/HiFV-xtZOE

What is the headline for the vid please.

lancek4 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I have said nothing of students or of being smarter. If you listened to Z then you might have more fuel for our disagreement.

I do not necessarily agree with n or z, but I understand the issue and how they are addressing it.

This does not work

http://youtu.be/HiFV-xtZOE

Neither does this

http://youtube.com/HiFV-xtZOE

What is the headline for the vid please.

Ah sorry. I re typed it not pasted. When I get back to my computer I will paste it. I know there are many of him on YouTube.

So.... Sob didn't even try it.

lancek4 wrote:I have said nothing of students or of being smarter. If you listened to Z then you might have more fuel for our disagreement.

I do not necessarily agree with n or z, but I understand the issue and how they are addressing it.

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:This does not work

http://youtu.be/HiFV-xtZOE

Neither does this

http://youtube.com/HiFV-xtZOE

What is the headline for the vid please.

Ah sorry. I re typed it not pasted. When I get back to my computer I will paste it. I know there are many of him on YouTube.

So.... Sob didn't even try it.

It would appear so!!!
That would mean he is talking bollocks (as usual).

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I have said nothing of students or of being smarter. If you listened to Z then you might have more fuel for our disagreement.

I do not necessarily agree with n or z, but I understand the issue and how they are addressing it.

And I quote:

lancek4 wrote:Oh and I only have padawan learners. No freinds.

And that was during the time we were discussing Truth. So what was that you were saying?

And it was implied just a few posts up when you, in so many words, said that AS and I, or many others for that matter, didn't understand N, but you did! As if you could possibly know that, in truth!

I've never directly indicated that I believe that I'm smarter than anyone in this forum. And if I did so indirectly, and it was called to my attention, I'd apologize, because I believe it'd be warranted.

If I remember correctly, I was being facetious or sarcastic in this response.
If this is in fact true, then and only then, it would appear that I jumped the gun, and owe you an apology for my presumption, and then holding you accountable for it, it would be my bad.

But there is no denying the inference above dealing with N, as to AS, my, and many others understanding, as contrasted by what you believe yours is. Of course, at the time, you may not have realized the implications contained within your words, dealing with your blackberry and all.

From your responses about N your disagreement is about what he is actually saying, rather than the issue ; as others have pointed out , it appears you are gathering your opinion from disjunct phrases here and there.
Yes, wisdom in these words of yours, it may appear as though what you say is true, but I assure you, I do not skip around, merely reading phrases here and there, and have read any particular section in it's entirety. Which like I said, I am currently doing with the two sections you have recommended, (TA-C 33-34).

If you remember correctly it was a complete section that I posted originally, in which I had issue, here it is again in it's entirety, it is (TA-C 2) complete:

"What is good? - Whatever enhances people's feeling of power, will to power, power itself.
What is bad? - Everything stemming from weakness.
What is happiness? - The feeling that power is growing, that some resistance has been overcome.
Not contentedness, but more power; not peace, but war;
not virtue, but prowess (virtue in the style of the Renaissance, virtû, moraline-free virtue).
The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this.
What is more harmful than any vice? - Active pity for all failures and weakness - Christianity...."

And yes, I have issue with what he says here, and find it as evil as Hitler's genocide solution! And remember I had asked Chaz to provide me with anything contained in any other section that would indicate that what he is saying here in (TA-C 2) is what he means people should NOT do, as opposed to how it sounds, that this is what people SHOULD do, and he failed to provide me with anything at all, such that I doubt that it's possible that he can.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

No it means you fail to understand my modus operandi,

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

No it means you fail to understand my modus operandi,

You means talking about stuff you have not listened to??
Yeah brilliant! Great modus.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

No it means you fail to understand my modus operandi,

You means talking about stuff you have not listened to??
Yeah brilliant! Great modus.

What are you talking about, are you an idiot?

He was talking about me not wanting to read Z's take on N, So is it that you are an idiot or is it that you just can't comprehend what you read?

lancek4 wrote:Upon some introspection I have to admit, sob,in that I have jumped the gun a little bit in not allowing you a fair reading of your own. I have to admit as much for my self in taking a existentialism 101 years ago where we would read and discuss. Not being very well read, myself, i had only heard of the authors. It was a good primer but I remember in an office mtg with the professor that I asked her if that was all there was to be said about the authors. I remember she looked at me strangely because I was really questioning her quality for a phd instructor. I could tell she was taken a back as insulted but was maintaing her professionalism. She said 'well....' and in her professional subtle way talked down to me.

I got from the class what I wanted which was a basic scholarly position. I cannot remember what specifics the class taught only that I could not adiquateky regurgitate the key points and do got a B if I remember correctly, and the was due to my effort, however course and unrefined it was.

I only recently have read N. but he reads like a children's book to me. It is obvious to me what he is saying. And now I recall the class in glimpses some of the ideas that we discussed.
This is due to my independent effort and experience.

I believe that I became interested in checking out N when I was ready to understand him, not the reverse. For all times before his sense was childish and obstinate , a view I still hold but now I have the base by which to make my claim, now apprehending the issue so clearly; which is to say, I see exactly why he appeared to me so childish, whereas before the feeling was met by me in that i had no time for such idiocy.