'Leaping Lao Tzu' taiji master - hands down Ahh humour, the best medicine - beats philosophy hands down. Nice one AZ
It really doesn't matter what I say, you're going to attack me for it apparently. I just explained how the response that you thought was a personal insult was a perfectly valid argument, I explained what the argument was, and how I applied it specifically to your statement. All I get in return is that I was being childish and that I have a low intellectual capacity (stupid). Socrates made this type of argument famous by the way, just a little aside in hopes that maybe you'll realize it's more than a "playground retort". So I quote one chapter from a book for the sake of starting a thread on the value of philosophy according to Russell, and that means I am a dogmatic close-minded philosopher who can't think outside of what he's read in books? I smell a hasty generalization... I understand you found it to be personally insulting. But I tried to clearly demonstrate how I was attacking your ideas, not you as a person, and you didn't take it kindly. If you can't try to be at least a little bit objective in a debate, you're not going to get anywhere Baikaiguy. Yeah, you know me so well Baikai. I keep trying to correct your misunderstandings and demonstrate that my attacks are on arguments and ideas, not people, and of course I'm doing this so that everyone can flame me Psin: Of course I don't eat newborn babies, I wait a year or two until they're nice and plump. And everyone knows Kenpo Krishnu would win the Divine Smack Down on Pay-per-view.
I dunno man, he's thin and wiry. He keeps slipping out of holds and around his opponent, his opponent will make a mistake out of sheer frustration. Then it's all about Ghandi!
Hello pot... this is kettle... if youre going to accuse and complain of someone using the strawman argument then dont do it yourself... (as above implying my suggestion that in the philosophical sense if the way is good yadda yadda and then turning it around to me condoning slavery/racism etc)... Having said that you argue that one set of ideas re phil is the way it must be without trying to understand others or even thinking they may also have validity so where is the straw... do you even have any original thoughts or are they all from something you have read and have yet to actually experience...??
All the fasting and vegan eating can't be good for his bones though, they'd probably break very easily in a grapple. I don't see him faring well against the Norse gods.
And in the microcosm of this forum we see a reflection of the macrocosm of philosophy in the world. It gives people the opportunity to say that "I'm clever and you're stupid" To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour. A robin redbreast in a cage Puts all heaven in a rage. A dove-house fill'd with doves and pigeons Shudders hell thro' all its regions. A dog starv'd at his master's gate Predicts the ruin of the state. A horse misused upon the road Calls to heaven for human blood. Each outcry of the hunted hare A fibre from the brain does tear. A skylark wounded in the wing, A cherubim does cease to sing. The game-**** clipt and arm'd for fight Does the rising sun affright. Every wolf's and lion's howl Raises from hell a human soul. The wild deer, wand'ring here and there, Keeps the human soul from care. The lamb misus'd breeds public strife, And yet forgives the butcher's knife. The bat that flits at close of eve Has left the brain that won't believe. The owl that calls upon the night Speaks the unbeliever's fright. He who shall hurt the little wren Shall never be belov'd by men. He who the ox to wrath has mov'd Shall never be by woman lov'd. The wanton boy that kills the fly Shall feel the spider's enmity. He who torments the chafer's sprite Weaves a bower in endless night. The caterpillar on the leaf Repeats to thee thy mother's grief. Kill not the moth nor butterfly, For the last judgement draweth nigh. He who shall train the horse to war Shall never pass the polar bar. The beggar's dog and widow's cat, Feed them and thou wilt grow fat. The gnat that sings his summer's song Poison gets from slander's tongue. The poison of the snake and newt Is the sweat of envy's foot. The poison of the honey bee Is the artist's jealousy. The prince's robes and beggar's rags Are toadstools on the miser's bags. A truth that's told with bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent. It is right it should be so; Man was made for joy and woe; And when this we rightly know, Thro' the world we safely go. Joy and woe are woven fine, A clothing for the soul divine. Under every grief and pine Runs a joy with silken twine. The babe is more than swaddling bands; Every farmer understands. Every tear from every eye Becomes a babe in eternity; This is caught by females bright, And return'd to its own delight. The bleat, the bark, bellow, and roar, Are waves that beat on heaven's shore. The babe that weeps the rod beneath Writes revenge in realms of death. The beggar's rags, fluttering in air, Does to rags the heavens tear. The soldier, arm'd with sword and gun, Palsied strikes the summer's sun. The poor man's farthing is worth more Than all the gold on Afric's shore. One mite wrung from the lab'rer's hands Shall buy and sell the miser's lands; Or, if protected from on high, Does that whole nation sell and buy. He who mocks the infant's faith Shall be mock'd in age and death. He who shall teach the child to doubt The rotting grave shall ne'er get out. He who respects the infant's faith Triumphs over hell and death. The child's toys and the old man's reasons Are the fruits of the two seasons. The questioner, who sits so sly, Shall never know how to reply. He who replies to words of doubt Doth put the light of knowledge out. The strongest poison ever known Came from Caesar's laurel crown. Nought can deform the human race Like to the armour's iron brace. When gold and gems adorn the plow, To peaceful arts shall envy bow. A riddle, or the cricket's cry, Is to doubt a fit reply. The emmet's inch and eagle's mile Make lame philosophy to smile. He who doubts from what he sees Will ne'er believe, do what you please. If the sun and moon should doubt, They'd immediately go out. To be in a passion you good may do, But no good if a passion is in you. The whore and gambler, by the stateLicensed, build that nation's fate. The harlot's cry from street to street Shall weave old England's winding-sheet. The winner's shout, the loser's curse, Dance before dead England's hearse. Every night and every morn Some to misery are born, Every morn and every night Some are born to sweet delight. Some are born to sweet delight, Some are born to endless night. We are led to believe a lie When we see not thro' the eye, Which was born in a night to perish in a night, When the soul slept in beams of light. God appears, and God is light, To those poor souls who dwell in night; But does a human form display To those who dwell in realms of day. William Blake - Auguries of Innocence As long quotes that aren't relevant appear to admissable as evidence I've added this poem because it is one of my favourites.
Well, I do the vegetarian thing, and I'm healthy! But he's not on the level of a God, we're talking about religious leaders, lol. Just to make things more interesting... I'm gonna toss Mother Teresa in the fray
I'll put my money on David Koresh then, Mother Teresa's quite small and she's probably fast on her feet. However, David has the advantage of using an AK47.
LOL! Tastefully done psin, tastefully done... Ghandi was enlightened and was a yoga master- can you imagine how flexible he would be? How can you grapple with a 100 lb. Indian who can kiss his own ***? He'd be hell in the ring!
Psin, the title of this thread I made is called the Value of Philosophy. I made it for the specific purpose of sharing Russell's thoughts on the value of philosophy thinking people might find it interesting. How could it possibly be irrelevent if it is the soul purpose of my creating this thread? Are you just trying to be a jerk?
As requested multiple times, one paragraph from the text you quoted that doesn't contain meaningless BS. We are all still waiting.
Wait all you want psin, but like I've already said, if you don't have the drive to even read the chapter, why do you expect me to go out of my way to spoon feed you?
So you are no willing to argue the chapter from what you think it means, instead you want us to do it for you...???
Sure, if you disagree with my definition of philosophy then yeah, you could very well say that someone who is pursuing rational understanding, questioning their beliefs and ideas, etc. isn't necessarily philosophizing. But when I defined it as such, it's a simple matter of A=A. So in that case, just for curiousity sake, how would you define philosophy? Cause there's obviously a clash of terms here, nothing more. Philosophy in mind? What are you talking about? I define philosophy as rationally questioning ideas, so if someone is rationally questioning ideas, they are philosophizing. What is the problem here? Like I said, if you disagree as to what philosophy, that's fine, but that in no way takes away any meaning or validity to what I'm saying. I asked you where I said it, and you basically replied "Well you said it". This time do you think you could actually support your assertion rather than simply make it again in such a vacuous manner? Show me where I said it, show me where I implied it, show me the super secret encryption I used to hide the statement within my post, I don't care. Just back up your accusations, or don't bother making them. I said that the straw man fallacy is the most common fallacy used in my experience. So obviously I'm talking about in my experience with discussing with other people. So what do books have to do with that? What does travelling outside of my comfort zone have to do with that? What do pathetic cheap shots at my age have to do with that? And what does any of the above paragraph have to do with the fact that your attacks have been completely irrelevent to what I've actually been saying? Are you just side-stepping in a very conspicuous manner? I say your arguments are fallacious, and you say I should have a beer with you after I go through puberty. Bravo. Also, the slavery and what not - you said that "good ways" don't need to be pushed. I gave examples of things that are good ways, but took a lot of time and great effort to be implemented/realized. That is not a straw man. That is a valid counterargument, and you have yet to address it, much less refute it. When I spoke of Einstein, I meant special relativity of course. I don't even know what you're referring to with spatial relativity, I've never heard of it and a search on Wikipedia brought up nothing. I don't really care what it even is, cause the point is I meant what I said, special relativity. Yeah well don't put all your eggs in one basket. And don't beat a dead horse. Don't throw stones in a glass house either. See, I can post little one-liners like that too that are irrelevent and devoid of context. If you'd bother to make a tie in and show where and how I'm not looking outside the box, perhaps your statement would mean something. First off, even if I did use a strawman argument, that doesn't negate the fact that you did. So trying to turn the table isn't going to make your argument any less irrelevent and fallacious. Nice try though. Secondly, where did I say you condoned slavery? The irony of you using a straw man argument to accuse me of making a straw man argument is enough to make a chap pee his pants Are you talking about how I define philosophy? If so, where did I refuse to understand anyone else's take on the definition of philosophy and what makes a philosopher? Just above you'll notice I specifically asked for your definition if you disagree with mine, in fact. Also, what is your original thoughts and lack of experience attack referring to? Is it just another vague and meaningless statement? Could you actually learn to tie your statements into some sort of relevent meaning or context so that they aren't delivered completely devoid of any content?
I want psin to read a post before he thinks he knows enough about it to respond or refute. It's common courteousy, and it's common sense. I guess I'm in a tiny minority of people who won't respond to a thread or post if they haven't read it. It's pretty arrogant and stupid for me to think I can comment on something when I don't even know what I'm talking about. Psin is trying to tell me that a chapter he hasn't even bothered to read is full of meaningless BS. That strikes me as a bit odd. If you don't want to read the OP, that's fine with me, don't get involved in the discussion on it. If you want to discuss, have the courteousy and the motivation to educate yourself one what you're actually talking about rather than speaking from complete ignorance.
Socratein, personally I think you are taking a slightly too beligerent hard line on this. Maybe I should go back and actually read tha OP properly? I just skimmed it and actually as I write have no idea of its content.. Does that tell you somehow i have no understanding of philosophy or whether I agree or disagree with you? Are not psin and shadowdh rationally questioning your ideas - they are philosophizing - under your defenition. No one wants to take away the validity or meaning of what you say, but perhaps question the motivation and manner in which you say it. Rationally questioning your ideas? Look you've posted some ideas (other peoples). free will, value of philosophy etc. and basically sat behind them.. to let others provide the input/inerpretations. What is your interpretation as it relates to you?. If that's the question these guys are asking you, then I think it is a valid one. I posted my interpretation of 'the value of philosophy' I don't think there request to you the OP to give us his is unreasonable. I would understand if you did not want to, but then the manner of your posts would seem out of sync with your motivation. I think that's what we are trying to get at - by letting us know you we may understand your motivation, and play along. I really should go an read that OP properly, but I just can't be bothered.... I can think for myself mate and so can you. The discussions here is just as valuable or more so than whatever Russel says. Only the other day Cuchulain82 was kind enough to indulge me with his greater knowledge - and I am very thankful. Much more valuable to me than buying some dry book, that I would probably never finish. If shadowdh or psin for e.g. read (or you) the OP and gave(interpretation) /said to me 'this is what I think of that geo' Why is their insight any less/more valuable than mine or yours. Under whos terms are we judging anyway. Yours.. Its only fair becuase it unfair. Where do we place the balance point of judgement, yours? Russels? Is Russels any more relevent, valuable than psins etc.. It matters not unless you have your own. Do you?. It's your free will you know
Is it a question of A=A? Everyone will have there take on it. So how can A=A. Clash of terms = YES, but does that equal clash of minds? probably not IME So 'who cares about Russels view' is valid cos we all have the same idea in mind anyway, just expressed in our own subjective terms. So while I may 'not care', I also 'do care' as I am sure Russel is an intelligent guy - as I am sure you are. IME whether you seek them or simply allow them, all the insights that are for you will come when they are ready to.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Could you tell me what "this" is in reference to? It's hard to get an idea of what something is saying if you merely skim it. And no, it doesn't make any indication of your understanding of philosophy, just your understanding of this particular philosophical passage. And no, of course I don't know whether you agree or disagree if you don't even understand it. I don't think so no. Psin is arguing with me over a piece he hasn't even read. It reminds me of a time I debated with a guy who told me the Passion of the Christ was obviously a very anti-semitic film. I asked if he had even seen it, and he said no, he doesn't need to cause it's so obviously anti-semitic Sounds like me asking psin if he has even read the chapter, and he says no, he's not going to waste his time, cause it's obviously a load of meaningless BS. That's not rational argument in the least. And Shadowdh has nothing but strawmen thus far, which isn't very rational either. They're irrationally attacking me, they're not rationally questioning my ideas from what I have seen. If you read my free-will thread again you'll see that my opening post is my own argument against free will, in the form of a logical syllogism and followed with a concise explanation of the argument and its implications. That is obviously my own "input" don't you think? And yes of course after making an initial argument I sit behind it and wait for refutations, cause that's how debate works. The burden shifts back and forth from party to party as arguments are made and rebutted. Would you rather I just argue with myself for post after post? It only makes sense that I put my initial argument, and then wait for replies and criticisms. As for this thread, I was sharing a piece by a famous philosopher with the hopes that some people might learn something about philosophy that they didn't know before. The only really relevent responses to such a thread are in the form of agreement, requests for clarification on a specific portion, or arguments against the passage or a portion thereof. So once again, what else would you have me do? How do I give my input on such a thread? Put an "I agree with Russell" at the bottom of the OP? My thoughts were already given - this is a good piece and can help to clarify an issue that many people seem to be confused/ignorant of. What more do you want? Do you expect someone to give a play by play of every clip they post on MAP of a fight? What's wrong with just wanting to share something interesting with people who might not have seen it before? That's not the question they're asking. You're right, it might be a valid one if it were. However we're not dissecting poetry here. I don't see a lot of room for interpretation in Russell's work, he says what he means to say, simple as that. You can either agree or disagree. I agree with what he says, that's my take on it. If we were analyzing poetry or metaphors in classic literature, then yeah, interpretation would be very important. But this is not the case. That's just crap GEO. I've gleaned a hell of a lot more from reading Russell than I could ever get out of this ridiculous thread. Thinking for yourself does not mean refusing to learn from others GEO, I don't know where you got such a notion. You're never going to get anywhere if you refuse to learn from informative sources and try to do everything yourself - nobody is that smart. Do you refuse to read Darwin's Origin of the Species cause you'd rather think for yourself and invent the theory of evolution without help from anyone else? That seems dumb and unproductive. There's nothing wrong from learning from other, smarter, people. The thinking for yourself part comes into play when you learn from others and then decide what to accept and what to reject. Thinking for yourself does not mean teaching yourself everything you would hope to know. That's impossible. The book you've never read is dry huh? Once again I'm reminded of my friend who says the movie he's never seen obviously is anti-semitic. Also, I'm sorry you have the attention span of a pet rock, but that doesn't negate the value of books just cause you can't be bothered to read one the whole way through. What are you talking about? Sorry GEO, I read this portion 3 times and it's point eludes me. Could you please rephrase somehow in a more concise way. Sorry to be a pain, but for whatever reason it just didn't make sense to me.
Yes, it's a question of A=A. When I say philosophy = devotion to rational understanding and questioning, that means someone who is devoted to rational understanding and questioning is philosophizing. I have equated the two ideas, that's what a definition is. If I'm willing to act in spite of my fear, I have courage, and if I have courage I'm willing to act in spite of my fear. A=A. Shadowdh was saying that someone can rationally try to understand and question without philosophizing, but that's not true if you define philosophy as rationally trying to understand and question. He can't blatantly contradict my definition like that without completely ignoring what I've said. He can disagree with my definition of course, but that doesn't preclude understanding my argument in the context of my definition.
