Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote:...
You know, philosophy = love of wisdom = love of good and sound judgement, which what you say is not, ever.

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:...
You know, philosophy = love of wisdom = love of good and sound judgement, which what you say is not, ever.

But the goal of Philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts, something you never do.

HexHammer wrote:But I do, I even write it and spell it out, but you never comprehend it, you always then try to refude my claims and make nonsense and babble conclusions. ...

Just look at the usuefulness of philosophy and the english philospher schools, you just couldn't comprehend that the head master was incompetent to make a unbiased statement about how useful philosphy is. ...

..that in my view makes any one not understandign that, unusual stupid. I gave a very very long explenation and most of what I have skipped should be selfexplanatory, but unfortunaly I must spell everything out for complete retards, who then accuse me not explaining anything.

Arising_uk wrote:Do I? Show me where.

Just look at the usuefulness of philosophy and the english philospher schools, you just couldn't comprehend that the head master was incompetent to make a unbiased statement about how useful philosphy is. ...

Yes let's look as you appear to be ignoring the facts I've already posted, so once more,
http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... s-literacy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 78958.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33464258

..that in my view makes any one not understandign that, unusual stupid. I gave a very very long explenation and most of what I have skipped should be selfexplanatory, but unfortunaly I must spell everything out for complete retards, who then accuse me not explaining anything.

You rarely give an explanation about anything and when you think you do it is exactly the same nonsense and babble, i.e. you compare science and philosophy ignoring that you have no understanding or training in either but are just another cozy chatter upon these subjects. You also mistake those upon philosophy forums as representative of philosophers or those who have had philosophical training and the irony is that you are one who has had no philosophical training but like the rest of the cozy-chatters think yourself qualified to judge the subject.
p.s.
I realise that English is your second language but that does not forgive not using a spell-checker.

HexHammer wrote:...

I haven't so far seen any with a philosophical education being superior to me, plz pit me against such people and let's see who is superior.

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:...

I haven't so far seen any with a philosophical education being superior to me, plz pit me against such people and let's see who is superior.

You just have, but why would you think someone with a philosophical education would be superior to you? Other than when it comes to knowing what the subject has said so far that is.

HexHammer wrote: Who here on Philosophy Now is superior to me?!?! ..that's what I wrote!!!

Arising_uk wrote:[This thread was created by splitting posts off the Do solid subatomic particles exist? thread, at the request of the originator - iMod]

HexHammer wrote:...
You know, philosophy = love of wisdom = love of good and sound judgement, which what you say is not, ever.

But the goal of Philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts, something you never do.

marjoram_blues wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:[This thread was created by splitting posts off the Do solid subatomic particles exist? thread, at the request of the originator - iMod]

HexHammer wrote:...
You know, philosophy = love of wisdom = love of good and sound judgement, which what you say is not, ever.

But the goal of Philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts, something you never do.

Good work,iMod and the originator.
The ability to split posts to create a new thread clearly has advantages. For the reader coming to a new topic, they don't have to wade through umpteen pages of contermashus irrelevancies (entertaining as they sometimes are ).
It should make it easier to follow a line of thought, all the better to reply.

Of course there are always divergences, exciting lines to follow. This can still happen within a thread. It is sometimes a good idea to indicate any swervings by e.g. changing subject title in box or within off-topic reply O/T.

Not everyone knows,or remembers, what can be done to achieve a better reading, or thinking experience.
As far as I am concerned, this type of transparent moderator action can only improve the forum. Thanks iMod.

____

Edit to add: One thing, I nearly didn't open this thread. Slightly misleading; title seemed another piece of nonsense, apparently initiated by arising instead of philx (unless they are one and the same!!)

marjoram_blues wrote: Edit to add: One thing, I nearly didn't open this thread. Slightly misleading; title seemed another piece of nonsense initiated by arising instead of philx (unless they are one and the same! )

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote: Edit to add: One thing, I nearly didn't open this thread. Slightly misleading; title seemed another piece of nonsense initiated by arising instead of philx (unless they are one and the same! )

marjoram_blues wrote:O/T

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote: Edit to add: One thing, I nearly didn't open this thread. Slightly misleading; title seemed another piece of nonsense initiated by arising instead of philx (unless they are one and the same! )

I and Arising have separate existences.

PhilX


I thought so. You are really Rick Lewis.
Oh no, that would be Hex...

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:...

I haven't so far seen any with a philosophical education being superior to me, plz pit me against such people and let's see who is superior.

You just have, but why would you think someone with a philosophical education would be superior to you? Other than when it comes to knowing what the subject has said so far that is.

HexHammer wrote:That's not what I said, read close, you have an inability to comprehend very simple things, outside of your weird math P is prove of P or whatever it was.

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:That's not what I said, read close, you have an inability to comprehend very simple things, outside of your weird math P is prove of P or whatever it was.

You don't appear to understand what a study of Philosophy involves or maybe you do but due to where you are from think it's what used to be called Continental Philosophy and that is not what is or was(?) studied over here. I studied Anglo/American Analytic Philosophy and that involves exactly a very close reading of others arguments so I know what you said and pointed out to you that with respect to the subject of Philosophy I am superior to you as you are just a cozy chatter about it. For example, you think Logic is weird Maths whereas it's exactly the study of declarative propositions and their relation with respect to meaning, language and argumentation. Once again I appear to be superior to you in these matters whereas you just babble nonsense.

I also appear to be able to use the functions of this forum in a more superior way to you as you appear to still be talking about solid subatomic particles?