Philosophy Now Forum

I'm just an old guy with a pretty broad experience with life. I consider myself as a serious philosopher who's been fortunate enough to reap clear and pointed benefits from my applied philosophy.

I consider the greatest divide in discussions to be doubt. Doubt about the person's veracity; doubt that the person knows what he is talking about; doubt about the 'possibility' of Enlightenment; doubt about a person's credentials; doubt about the person's character; and doubt that the very things being 'searched for' are actually possessed by the one disclosing it. These 'doubting' mind-sets all to easily lead to Ad Hominem arguments do no more than trying to lift yourself up by 'downing' another person's character.

I consider myself; An Agnostic With a Great Deal of Faith

I am Jack

Mortalsfool wrote: I'm just an old guy
I am Jack

Good for you, now do you expect everyone to be nice to you because you're old, or do you understand that you are just another B.O.F. like me.

Are you saying that you don't know Jack about anything?

Mortalsfool wrote:I'm just an old guy with a pretty broad experience with life. I consider myself as a serious philosopher who's been fortunate enough to reap clear and pointed benefits from my applied philosophy.

I consider the greatest divide in discussions to be doubt. Doubt about the person's veracity; doubt that the person knows what he is talking about; doubt about the 'possibility' of Enlightenment; doubt about a person's credentials; doubt about the person's character; and doubt that the very things being 'searched for' are actually possessed by the one disclosing it. These 'doubting' mind-sets all to easily lead to Ad Hominem arguments do no more than trying to lift yourself up by 'downing' another person's character.

I consider myself; An Agnostic With a Great Deal of Faith

I am Jack

Surely doubt is the most powerful position to have. Without doubt you are at the mercy of any crackpot theory.
What use has an agnostic for Faith - faith in what exactly?
And how old do you consider old?

Just to mention, just under half the world's population is technically 'older than most'. It's called passing the median age of a population.

Dalek Prime wrote:Just to mention, just under half the worlds population is technically 'older than most'.

George Bush once found himself horrified to learn that 50% of American school kids' reading skills were below the average.
"We gotta do sumin aabout that!!!"

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Just to mention, just under half the worlds population is technically 'older than most'.

George Bush once found himself horrified to learn that 50% of American school kids' reading skills were below the average.
"We gotta do sumin aabout that!!!"

Yes, literacy should begin at home. But he couldn't read a map, and it never happened.

Hobbes is right. It's important to think critically and question things.

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

Dalek Prime wrote:http://sitacuisses.blogspot.ca/2015/04/ ... eracy.html

I can see how it could easily happen if you have only a few people scoring highly and the rest scoring poorly.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Hobbes is right. It's important to think critically and question things.

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

Great man, great bongo player.

Dalek Prime wrote:http://sitacuisses.blogspot.ca/2015/04/ ... eracy.html

If you wanted to take the average of mean, mode and median, which of the three averages would you choose?

thedoc wrote:

Mortalsfool wrote: I'm just an old guy
I am Jack

Good for you, now do you expect everyone to be nice to you because you're old, or do you understand that you are just another B.O.F. like me.

Are you saying that you don't know Jack about anything?

Nah! You don't have to be nice to me. In fact I relish the idea that someone would cross swords with me. I always thought that both 'attacks' and discussions reveal a lot about those we meet.

jack

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Mortalsfool wrote:I'm just an old guy with a pretty broad experience with life. I consider myself as a serious philosopher who's been fortunate enough to reap clear and pointed benefits from my applied philosophy.

I consider the greatest divide in discussions to be doubt. Doubt about the person's veracity; doubt that the person knows what he is talking about; doubt about the 'possibility' of Enlightenment; doubt about a person's credentials; doubt about the person's character; and doubt that the very things being 'searched for' are actually possessed by the one disclosing it. These 'doubting' mind-sets all to easily lead to Ad Hominem arguments do no more than trying to lift yourself up by 'downing' another person's character.

I consider myself; An Agnostic With a Great Deal of Faith

I am Jack

Surely doubt is the most powerful position to have. Without doubt you are at the mercy of any crackpot theory.
What use has an agnostic for Faith - faith in what exactly?
And how old do you consider old?

Due to the complete rejection of our subjective opinions as 'evidence, I am forced by the outside world to keep subjective evidence for myself, as I admit that I can offer no more proof of God's existence than that which I'm forced to 'accept' from my own personal experience; which is of course only subjective.

Hence, I stand with the outside world and its admission of a complete lack of objective evidence, but must still highly value my own subjective interpretations where my opinion matches the 'observable'. It is far too difficult to negate the weight of subjectivity and just throw it away as meaningless, so I remain, an Agnostic to the outside world, with a deep faith inside.

Dalek Prime wrote:Just to mention, just under half the world's population is technically 'older than most'. It's called passing the median age of a population.

I'm not sure what constitutes 'being old', since I meet many that are younger than I in years, with old bodies and heads; I'm 79.

Mortalsfool wrote:I'm just an old guy with a pretty broad experience with life. I consider myself as a serious philosopher who's been fortunate enough to reap clear and pointed benefits from my applied philosophy.

I consider the greatest divide in discussions to be doubt. Doubt about the person's veracity; doubt that the person knows what he is talking about; doubt about the 'possibility' of Enlightenment; doubt about a person's credentials; doubt about the person's character; and doubt that the very things being 'searched for' are actually possessed by the one disclosing it. These 'doubting' mind-sets all to easily lead to Ad Hominem arguments do no more than trying to lift yourself up by 'downing' another person's character.

I consider myself; An Agnostic With a Great Deal of Faith

I am Jack

If you indeed think of being a "serious" philospher, then you have come to the wrong forum, it has the highest count of ...not-so-good-philosphers compared to other fora, just that this forum has the best freedom of speech, least I haven't been banned yet, contrary most other fora.

But welcome, none the less..