In which is discussed a topic of some importance to a variet

[_________]

Phyllo, are you thinking Das Rheingold, Die Walkure, Siegfried, Gottendammerung or the whole damned thing?

Monooq, I'll read it a little later.

[d63]

Language here takes us only to an abyss that is its own limitations. And beyond it it does not appear able to go. Aside, of course, from analysis, the logic of which is predicated on a looping circularity that is a world of words.

"If you say, I love you, then you have already fallen in love with language, which is already a form of break up and infidelity."
~Baudrillard

Pretty quote, Math.

[iambiguous]

What?

Why dignify it? ; o )

[iambiguous]

What?

It's my short history of the thread...

Yes, this reflects the manner in which you construe the meaning of the words used in the thread's conflicting narratives. But: Does it also reflect the manner in which all the rest of us must agree to share that meaning if we are to be deemed rational philosophers?

In other words, you always forget the part about the looping logic embedded in scholastic analysis of this ilk.

Again:

Mary had an abortion.
Abortion is immoral.

Or:

Edvard Munch painted The Scream.
The Scream is a beautiful painting.

Now, in my opinion:

You cannot tally premises and arrive at a conclusion [a justification] for the second proposition in the manner in which this can be done -- easily done -- regarding the first proposition.

Regarding the first proposition, it either is or is not true. And it is as simple as that. Regarding the second proposition, however, it can only be a matter of opinion.

Barring an argument of course that convinces me otherwise.

But even if such an argument is made how in the world would we go about demonstrating to all that this is the value judgement equivalent of 1 + 1 = 2?

[von Rivers]

Yes, this reflects the manner in which you construe the meaning of the words used in the thread's conflicting narratives. But: Does it also reflect the manner in which all the rest of us must agree to share that meaning if we are to be deemed rational philosophers?

Clearly, yes.

Barring an argument of course that convinces me otherwise.

I've provided 3 in my short history.

[Faust]

Yeah......I think you've beaten me, Monie. You've bored me right out of this thread.

Good luck in all future endeavors.

I'm sure we will meet again......

[von Rivers]

Yeah......I think you've beaten me, Monie. You've bored me right out of this thread.

I used to hate chemistry---I thought it was boring. I realize now that it was just because I didn't understand a fucking piece of it.



....Maybe philosophy isn't really your thing, Faust.

[Faust]

I'm not biting. You'll have to continue your diary thread without me. Let's just rejoice in the time we have had together...

[von Rivers]

I'm not biting. You'll have to continue your diary thread without me. Let's just rejoice in the time we have had together...

If I were you, I would go ahead and read some of Plato's dialogues, then Descartes' meditations, then Kant's prolegomena (that's like the first Critique--but a 'for Dummies' version), then Schopenhauer and Nietzsche---everything aside from Birth of Tragedy. That'll get you started. At which point you'll know if you're into philosophy, or not. (Every idea that Nietzsche ever wrote was jusified, or not, on aesthetic grounds). Then you can re-read this thread.





I am a river.

[Faust]

Been there, done that. It's telling that you have left Hume off that list. Even more telling that you have left off Frege, Tarski and Russell. Even Kripke. I'm sure you can find something at Wikipedia about them. Perhaps after that, you might want to re-read your argument, such as it is.

[von Rivers]

Been there, done that. It's telling that you have left Hume off that list. Even more telling that you have left off Frege, Tarski and Russell. Even Kripke. I'm sure you can find something at Wikipedia about them. Perhaps after that, you might want to re-read your argument, such as it is.

Oh, believe me... I know about Al and Saul. And I've read about Bertrand----I just think he'll be an after-thought in a footnote, in 50 years.

Anyways, my point before was that you should go and read some of the main figures. I think that you have a bad gauge of what's important, here---and in the history of philosophy generally.

[Faust]

And as I have said, I have done that. Twenty years ago. Thirty. Thirty-five.

[von Rivers]

I have done that. Twenty years ago. Thirty. Thirty-five.

Oh, that could be why. Personally, I like to re-read these things.




...Try not to get bored with them...

[_________]

And that's when I decided this thread isn't worth anything more than this response.

[von Rivers]

And that's when I decided this thread isn't worth anything more than this response.

When this happens to me, I admit that I was wrong---and I thank the person for opening my eyes to convincing arguments. That's in the spirit of philosophy. You're just different, like that, and that's fine for piano players, I assume. I get it. No hard feelings, and adios.

[von Rivers]

Damn poor reception for my summation.

It's like I advertised a fucking handjob.

What the fuck did you think it was going to be?

It was 30 pages condensed into narrative form.

[_________]

You should be embarrassed. This is the last I'm responding to anything you post until such a time as a formal apology is presented for your conduct. You can misconstrue this as your victory if you so choose; you are entitled to believe whatever you wish.

[von Rivers]

You should be embarrassed. This is the last I'm responding to anything you post until such a time as a formal apology is presented for your conduct. You can misconstrue this as your victory if you so choose; you are entitled to believe whatever you wish.

You're delusional.




Adios.

[iambiguous]

Yes, this reflects the manner in which you construe the meaning of the words used in the thread's conflicting narratives. But: Does it also reflect the manner in which all the rest of us must agree to share that meaning if we are to be deemed rational philosophers?

Clearly, yes.

Isn't this also the dreary reaction of thousands upon thousands of dogmatists who, throughout human history, all insisted their God or their Reason is the sole path to true enlightenment?

Ah, but your path really is, right?

Even if it's a river.

Barring an argument of course that convinces me otherwise.

I've provided 3 in my short history.

And that is your point. The fact that you have provided the arguments. That others actually be convinced by them however is entirely irrelevant.

[iambiguous]

And that's when I decided this thread isn't worth anything more than this response.

When this happens to me, I admit that I was wrong---and I thank the person for opening my eyes to convincing arguments. That's in the spirit of philosophy. You're just different, like that, and that's fine for piano players, I assume. I get it. No hard feelings, and adios.

Again:

What, in fact, were you wrong about in the past? You admitted above [to me] that your eyes [and, presumably, your mind] were opened to convincing arguments from others. What were they? You've had weeks now to think back.

Personally, I can't imagine you admitting you were ever wrong about anything. You strike me as just another mind embracing the Ayn Rand syndrome.

In other words, your philosophy of life is little more than a psychological defense mechanism. That you believe something is true is less important than that you believe that something is true.

[Chester]

Damn poor reception for my summation.

It's like I advertised a fucking handjob.

What the fuck did you think it was going to be?

It was 30 pages condensed into narrative form.

One thing "clever" cunts hate is simplicity, it makes 'em feel stupid ...that they didn't realise it.

[von Rivers]

Ah, but your path really is, right?

Well, with regard to the thread, and considering the lack of any opposed arguments, I'd say: I think so.

[von Rivers]

What irks me is that some people are too fucking lazy to actually read it.



I really should have expected that.

[iambiguous]

Ah, but your path really is, right?

Well, with regard to the thread, and considering the lack of any opposed arguments, I'd say: I think so.

A point of view isn't an actual argument to you unless it substantiates your own. And, for the sake of his people, shouldn't a river know for sure?

[von Rivers]

A point of view isn't an actual argument to you unless it substantiates your own. And, for the sake of his people, shouldn't a river know for sure?

An argument is typically a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition. Try it one time.