Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote:- Life can be so unfair when you strive to ape what you perceive to be the cause of your hysteria, if you wanna get rational.

See, a good example of what I talk about.

“Do you think that these people would have developed the same cavalier and callous attitudes … or do you think that in isolation, they would not have even done the work?”

And I asked you what work were you talking about?

- In between was sufficient information for you to answer the question, instead of looking for ways to distract. One method is to stonewall until you can ask: At this point, what difference does it make? ...

You live in a dream world of your own making. I asked you a question to clarify your's so I could answer and yet here I am still waiting.

- It’s not my job to feed you. ...

I'd have thought your job as a supposed 'philosopher' would involve a little clarity but I see scant sign of this.

- No need to ask what it is you do here.
It’s obvious. ...

Pray tell?

Maybe it’s just a cultural thing.

- American’s do have the spirit of self-reliance, of looking within for answers, of thinking for oneself rather than wandering around asking questions from everyone met, like a lost boy. ...

Is this why they keep blundering about the place?

- This makes Americans the Supreme Philosophers. ...

No, it generally makes them idiots who keep repeating others mistakes.

"Lord it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way."

And you know what, I don't think any irony was intended.

You’re quite unfocused from the question, Foggy. One wonders why you even bother.

uk wrote:And you know what, I don't think any irony was intended.

Irony is rather simplistic.

It’s more like this American philosopher.

Arising_uk wrote:And you could try being less smug most of the time.

Well, we at least managed to get you to commit on your "smug bias."

What, you don’t like the smug style?

You prefer humble to address the uk?

Next you’ll be demanding a genuflection for the privilege of your questions.

Walker wrote:Irony is rather simplistic.

It’s more like this American philosopher.

Oh the irony!

Still, ignoring that, it's fair advice for the creative process and thinking in general I guess but not so sure it's that useful an approach for Philosophy as practiced now-a-days as the history of philosophy shows that whilst ones thoughts are unique they are not always original so I think it pays to do a bit of reading about what's actually been said so far, otherwise you may well waste a lot of time reinventing the wheel and a shoddy one at that.

thedoc wrote:And the ones who were left would fight, as long as the Americans were in front of them. ...

You'll find they fought and died in their droves before you turned up late as usual. The last time you wouldn't have come at all unless for Jap attacking you but would have happily kept on trading with the Nazi. Anything for a buck eh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Qhbdijv5Y

A great example of how the British are secure enough to laugh at themselves. Something the 'Yank' finds very difficult apparently.

Walker wrote:Well, we at least managed to get you to commit on your "smug bias." ...

I commit when I can clearly understand what is being asked. But now I understand that you are a fan of Waldo I can understand why your posts say nothing.

What, you don’t like the smug style?

Not when it has no ground.

You prefer humble to address the uk?

Nope, I'd prefer answers and clear questions.

Next you’ll be demanding a genuflection for the privilege of your questions.

On your knees dog!!

Oh, the analysis resulting in the one-word labeling is both stupid and most precious.

Foggy smokescreens. You lean on others to answer your questions.

Plain and simple: you present no philosophy other than negation ... of all but yourself.

Criticize yourself. That will keep you busy.

In the meantime, the distance from the question keeps increasing, more fog into the mix, and thinking once again is dodged.

(Hands now flutter with the mutter ... "What question? I don't get it. I was born yesterday," he said, with every posting ...)

Walker wrote:Oh, the analysis resulting in the one-word labeling is both stupid and most precious.

Which word in particular concerns you?

Foggy smokescreens. You lean on others to answer your questions. ...

Up to them if they answer them or not.

Plain and simple: you present no philosophy other than negation ... of all but yourself. ...

No idea what this 'negation' is meant to describe but if you mean I generally ask questions or offer critique then guilty as I think a large part of philosophising is clarification and analysis and you can't do the latter until the former is agreed.

Criticize yourself. That will keep you busy. ...

Why, when I have you and others to do that for me?

In the meantime, the distance from the question keeps increasing, more fog into the mix, and thinking once again is dodged. ...

Once more, what fucking question, what is it you are asking of me?

Whilst we at it how about you answering my first question, the one that started this whole hoo-har.

(Hands now flutter with the mutter ... "What question? I don't get it. I was born yesterday," he said, with every posting ...)

Act as though I was and please restate your question so I can understand it and answer it.

Arising_uk wrote:Act as though I was and please restate your question so I can understand it and answer it.

Silly fella. You lost it way back there in the fog of your own creation. Add lost to uncomprehending. Add solitary to your quest for both the question, and the answer. This is because your performance and demonstrated capacity does not inspire trust in further movement down your yellow brick road. Maybe if I was younger, full of vim and vigor for your game. The question was clear. The question was adequately explained. For dualistic lil' ol' me, the question now lives as the frozen, dead words of the past. The question was pertinent to both life, and philosophy. And for you, the question that was an opportunity to learn in the living process of truth by answering the question, to the best of your abilities of thinking within the stated limitations of self-reliance, to perhaps transcend the limitations, well, (pause with a sad shake of the head) that opportunity was wasted, wasn’t it. You don’t even know the question. It means nothing to you.

And, here is what lies beyond your control. I have lost interest in the topic, myself, because it fluttered away like a butterfly. This is, in no way, a reflection upon the significance, and daresay I even the great importance manifesting as the meaning and purpose of the question, even the meaning and purpose of life. For this principle is enshrined in the great truth that all men someday realize: As I was you are, as I am you will be.

The best questions and answers come from need and purpose, not idle amusement.

From this, do you not see the humor in the sadness of waste, do you not see the effort and purpose to be found in emptiness, and in short, do you not see the very meaning of life? If you do not there’s hope, for in the temple (sigh, temple has already been defined, just look around) these questions can be answered every moment, and there you may even find the meaning to your own ironic whimsy, if understanding of that also eludes you.

Since none us knows for sure what tomorrow may bring, or even if tomorrow will exist as a new dawning, in case the opportunity should not appear I would like to seize it now to say, thank you very much for creating the opportunity for this life-observation, and to tap into the ever-flowing stream of truth. You can allow yourself to feel the swelling of pride for the part you have played in this revelation, for now the words that have been created from the synergy of ignorance and lemonade, now exist as a third entity, to exist frozen in digitaltitis, perhaps for all time, perhaps not. Who can say what tomorrow will bring.

Thank you, uk. Yes.

So much for your criticism of me evading and not answering a question.

Arising_uk wrote:So much for your criticism of me evading and not answering a question.

Piece ... of ... work.

I ... agree ... you ... are ... and ... a ... bombastic ... waffler ...to ... boot.

Arising_uk wrote:I ... agree ... you ... are ... and ... a ... bombastic ... waffler ...to ... boot.

Conclusion:

Do you see? You had to write silly commentary and wander around saying, “I don’t know the question but you should stick to the question that I can’t be bothered to review and know …”

Sure.

And yes, those were the exact words you were using to yourself, in case you revert to your silly act.

While you were busy with your time, I used your refusal to answer the new question that appeared with your presence, namely, your refusal to even look for the question in review, and took your silly commentary, to explore a new question that you presented.

Namely, how to philosophize with a wall.

The contemplation was fine.

Was your silliness good for you?

By the way, I do know the answers to the original questions, and the answer to the original question.
Quite simply, you are demonstrably unworthy of the conversation.

Demonstrate differently, maybe you'll hear a new song, Foggy.

(I think that should fill your smug ration for awhile.)

More waffle from you.

You didn't answer my original question as that is all I was interested in initially as it would have been interesting if it wasn't just some made-up bollocks. The rest was just about your homily of which I have little idea what it was you were asking of me, something about whether this nurse or some such would do her job in isolation but I have no idea what her job was? Other than working in a family planning clinic nor what her beef was with her colleagues other than that she had one. All in all I think you follow Emerson very well.

Sorry Pilgrim, life goes on. President Trump just sent a heavy message to President Assad.

Heavy …
(voice of late night DJ)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHDuav9pJoc