Philosophy Now Forum

Bill Wiltrack wrote:I appreciate you thinking of me and of trusting me in asking for my opinion upon this important and interesting philosophical exchange.

What!? You stated you were going to give it, thats all. Get over yourself.

I take this responsibility seriously.

Take my hand.

As I guide you through this, sometimes connotative subject of philosophy, please keep in mind I will always guide you with patience and honesty.

This from the man who says he doesn't know himself, doesn't know what he's going to say, etc, etc.

I also give thanks to you for recognizing that it often appears that I care too much about others. This means a lot to me. Yes, sometime I do empathize with others to the detriment of my own well being. But that risk will never deter me.

What risk? Its pure self-indulgence.

As far as the Ethics Applied within the GIF I used as a teaching device, the girls Applied Ethics by choosing not to expose their breasts to the immediate detriment of the young chick.

This is the problem with pontificating upon what you can't be bothered to study. Ignoring the scurrilous opinion that Applied Ethics was knocked-up by academic ethicists to secure funding, the subject of Applied Ethics is not as you appear to believe watching people act according to their ethics, at a stretch that'd be Sociology or Psychology. Its about using 'philosophical methods' from Ethics to help people with ethical dilemmas. These girls appeared to be in no dilemma with respect to their morals and ethics about sexual displays in response to apparent emotional blackmail. However, I think that if they'd studied ethics then they might have thought about encouraging and reinforcing those who think such behaviour is acceptable and decided to log-off from the interaction. One could also question why you thought to reproduce it?

One thing that I would impart here, in reference more to philosophy in general but also applied to this GIF that I used in my original post, things are not always as simple as they may initially appear...

You appear to be the exception to your rule.

Thank you again, all of you. for all the accolades that you have bestowed upon me. I don't deserve them.

Never a truer word...

This was a fun and I hope insightful thread for all active members who participated.

So far I understand little insight to have been shown with respect to the idea of Applied Ethics as it is in Philosophy.

.










I appreciate your reply and your interest in this compelling philosophical thread.



I can sense that you are attempting to reach out and be more honest/more vulnerable.



I noticed that you haven't really started any new threads since...well, since the last time I told you to. So I, once again, strongly suggest that you now once more, start some philosophic threads here at the Philosophy Now Forums.


One other thing that I would like to point out to you:

A while back, on one of the most successful & thought provoking threads here at the Philosophy Now Forums, your reputation and integrity was totally destroyed. Unfortunately, that happened upon my thread. I share some responsibility.

Anyway, I have stated before, I hope that your integrity was destroyed upon that thread and not actually revealed there. You and that other poster selfishly employed a tactic where one would post and then the other poster would attack each sentence of the other.


That's not really philosophy. That's not really productive. That's not even interesting to read.


I notice that you have been traveling back to that point; that style. Perhaps you are attempting to re-live that experience or to try to undo it.


Let me free you from this style. It really has almost nothing of value. It stops philosophical thought from moving forward and kind-of throws the flow of a thread in reverse.

Later, as everyone here at the forum witnessed, the poster that totally destroyed you was completely exposed as the fraud that they were. LET. THAT. GO.


That phoney poster is no longer here. They cannot hurt you anymore.

Let's all move-on.



OK. I hope what I told you helps. Didn't mean for this to be so long but - I like you.







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











.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:I appreciate your reply and your interest in this compelling philosophical thread.

Since theres pretty much only the two of us here, can you tell me what you find compelling about it?

I can sense that you are attempting to reach out and be more honest/more vulnerable.

Then your senses are about as honed as your intellect.

Please stop applying your psycho-babble to me.

I noticed that you haven't really started any new threads since...well, since the last time I told you to. So I, once again, strongly suggest that you now once more, start some philosophic threads here at the Philosophy Now Forums.

Then your noticing is limited as I've pretty much never started a thread as, unlike you, I've read the philosophers and know that whilst raising a question or issue is a factor so is providing ones solution that others can discuss. That I've pretty read the canon of philosophers also leads me to understand that pretty much all my thoughts have been already been discussed and answered in great detail. Try it sometime, it may help you with your existential angst.

One other thing that I would like to point out to you:

A while back, on one of the most successful & thought provoking threads here at the Philosophy Now Forums, your reputation and integrity was totally destroyed. Unfortunately, that happened upon my thread. I share some responsibility.

Get over yourself, it had to do with a previous encounter and bugger all to do with you as you pretty much lauded the goaturder which showed how little you understand about his philosophy or where he got it from.

Anyway, I have stated before, I hope that your integrity was destroyed upon that thread and not actually revealed there. You and that other poster selfishly employed a tactic where one would post and then the other poster would attack each sentence of the other.

Its not a tactic, its a response to each sentence that states a proposition to be challenged. If someone wrote in paragraphs and they held together I'd respond in paragraphs.

That's not really philosophy. That's not really productive. That's not even interesting to read.

Unlike you I, generally, don't write for mass appeal to salve my ego. I write too the individual.

Tell me what you think philosophy 'really' is?

Tell me what you think the product should be?

I notice that you have been traveling back to that point; that style. Perhaps you are attempting to re-live that experience or to try to undo it.

Once again your notice is limited as my 'style' is pretty much in response to whats said and is firmly based in asking questions to clarify my understanding of the others thoughts. That so many respond badly tends to show me that they don't really understand their own thoughts and have very fragile egos. Something no philosopher can really afford to have.

Let me free you from this style. It really has almost nothing of value. It stops philosophical thought from moving forward and kind-of throws the flow of a thread in reverse. ...

That you think its about 'style' shows, to me, where you're coming from and its not Philosophy.

Later, as everyone here at the forum witnessed, the poster that totally destroyed you was completely exposed as the fraud that they were. LET. THAT. GO.

You keep asserting this so I request you point me to where this event happened?

Save your psycho-babble for yourself, you are projecting, as I have no need to 'let go' as I was not retaining anything.

I am puzzled tho' as you admired and lauded the goaturder, what changed your mind?

That phoney poster is no longer here. They cannot hurt you anymore.

They never could.

Let's all move-on.

You're the one who keeps raising it?

OK. I hope what I told you helps. Didn't mean for this to be so long but - I like you.

As I've told you, your feelings are pretty much immaterial to me as I'm not here for self-approbation. If you 'like' me then try answering some questions for once and thinking about what others say about your thoughts.

.








I feel sorry for you.


I know the box you are in.


I've been there.


Philosophy; real philosophy begins where the intellect ends.







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










You won't be able to understand this now.


Give it time.



Your arch for civility is appreciated.



Stay classy.







.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:I feel sorry for you.

Save your maudlin platitudes and feelings for yourself, you appear to need them.

I know the box you are in.

Pray tell?

I've been there.

No, you haven't.

Philosophy; real philosophy begins where the intellect ends.

Nope, this is where faith, religion and the ideologues live.

That you espouse anti-intellectualism upon a philosophy forum astounds me.

You won't be able to understand this now.

I did when I was fourteen.

Give it time.

Way past it now.

Tell you what, instead of wasting your time trawling the weeb for hippy-dippy stoner computer graphics why not do something that the internet was built for and assist real Cosmology and other Sciences. I do.

https://www.zooniverse.org/

Your arch for civility is appreciated.

Arf! Arf!

Stay classy

I will.

Going to reply to any of my questions about the ethics of your post anytime soon?

.









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







The intellect is an important aspect of being human.


Philosophy; real philosophy, begins where intellect ends.



In art, all types of art, there are three general phases that an artist can experience.

The first phase is marked by a conscious decision to study other artists' work in a general field.


Then the artists focuses upon their own work to develop their own style.


Then, if the artist is lucky, if they are a true artist, they become lost in their work.
Time, style, other peoples perception, none of this matters. The artist allows themselves to be lost, to be sucked into the magnet that is their chosen field of art. The art; the individual, become what religions speak of.


I know where you are at.


I have been there.




I wish you all the best.







.

*Yawn* Cut-Paste Deja Vue can be so tiresome.

See how really its all about me, me, me with you.

You're not an artist Bill, you're a plagiarist.

This is a Philosophy forum not an Arts forum.

Still not addressing any actual questions as usual.

.



Again, your arch for civility is recognizable and appreciated.


I think that same characteristic in you is reflected within your relationship to reaching for philosophical thought.



I know you look to me for many answers in relation to philosophy and I appreciate that. I take that responsibility seriously. I hope, in the questions of yours that I have addressed, I have provided you some meaningful insight.




I wish you all the best.




.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:Philosophy; real philosophy, begins where intellect ends.

Could you make a case for this point of view without recourse to your intellect?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:In art, all types of art, there are three general phases that an artist can experience.
The first phase is marked by a conscious decision to study other artists' work in a general field.
Then the artists focuses upon their own work to develop their own style.
Then, if the artist is lucky, if they are a true artist, they become lost in their work.
Time, style, other peoples perception, none of this matters. The artist allows themselves to be lost, to be sucked into the magnet that is their chosen field of art. The art; the individual, become what religions speak of.

This is pretentious nonsense. With very few exceptions artists in any medium first learn to draw. Then they are taught to draw and then they keep drawing until they can see what is actually there, something philosophers and scientists could learn from. Given the amount of drawing this requires they become at least competent drawers; the technical challenges of working in other media are relatively trivial. Good art, like good philosophy takes practise; neither are as easy as the quality of your posts suggest you believe.

.




There is an old saying in reference to philosophy about a finger pointing to the moon...




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



We need the intellect; the finger, to focus upon the goal of philosophy but the finger is not the goal.

The finger is a tool.



As far as my characterization of an individual's possible relationship to art, I stand with every word I stated.


I base that upon my individual experience and then later, through other philosophers, I was able to better understand what I went through.

Your experience may be different.


Not sure if I gave you enough information to understand my position. May want to check yourself...





.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:Again, your arch for civility is recognizable and appreciated.

Can to say this in English?

I think that same characteristic in you is reflected within your relationship to reaching for philosophical thought.

I think you have no understanding of what thinking philosophically entails.

I know you look to me for many answers in relation to philosophy and I appreciate that. I take that responsibility seriously. I hope, in the questions of yours that I have addressed, I have provided you some meaningful insight.

Your knowing is in error. You have answered no questions and provided no meaningful insights, just repeated cut&pastes that you appear to think have some meaning?

I wish you all the best.[/size]

KMA.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:There is an old saying in reference to philosophy about a finger pointing to the moon...

Nope, its in reference to Zen Buddhism.

We need the intellect; the finger, to focus upon the goal of philosophy but the finger is not the goal.

What do you think this goal is?

The finger is a tool.

You imply that the intellect is a tool but then you'd have to make coherent sense about a tool-user with no intellect?

.



Perhaps this would be clearer for you:








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







There is a finger and a moon that you'd be able to understand.








.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:We need the intellect; the finger, to focus upon the goal of philosophy but the finger is not the goal.

Very well; what does your intellect say about the goal of philosophy?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:The finger is a tool.

Indeed. One which you say shows us what the goal of philosophy is and is then to be dispensed with.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:As far as my characterization of an individual's possible relationship to art, I stand with every word I stated.

Oh, it's a possible relationship to art. Well, anything's possible.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:I base that upon my individual experience and then later, through other philosophers, I was able to better understand what I went through.

Your experience may be different.

It is. Who are the other philosophers that confirm that your experience is sufficiently characteristic of actual artists to merit posting on a philosophy forum? If you want to share your autobiography, find a medium that is suited to that purpose.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:Not sure if I gave you enough information to understand my position. May want to check yourself...

And having checked I can confirm that you haven't given me enough information, hence the questions.

Philosophy; real philosophy, begins where intellect ends.

Take care Bill, this is not a desirable place to be permanently.


It is similar to looking into the abyss, one wrong move and .....