in recent posts by a member that will remain anonymous, the reference that “you are a gentleman” struck me. i do not hear this phrase that often, i think, because of political correctness. now it’s you are a good person or something along the lines.
but really, as female, i was struck by the urge to post something so that i too will be called a gentleman.
the qualities that seem to define what a gentleman is seem to be universal. they seem, i think, to be able to extend to everyone. (note, i will not dignify a response to anyone who accuses me of penis envy…)
on the flip side, to be a lady definetly seems a woman thing. i cannot think of a man, if he is not a transexual, embracing this definition for himself. on the other hand, i think it would be fair for a woman, who is not transexual, to accept all the tenants of being a gentleman.
a definition of gentleman would help, and i can only vaguely respond with an assortment of rather meak adjectives: coutreous, intelliegent, aultristic, sense of humor…
think this is drawn from the oppressive society? or is it simply that women define themselves based on men, women are a subset, like of men? we are one, together, but exist independently?
I am intrigued by your wanting to be called a gentlemen. Just to get it out of the way, so we can be more philosophical…trix, you are a gentlemen. There I said, despite the weird feeling I got telling myself that I am actually saying this to a woman…regardless…onto the important task: why do you wish to be called a gentlemen?
Is it because, as you said in your previous post, you believe it refers to someone who is thought to be good?
There is an interesting debate in Plato’s works, specifically in the Republic, between Thrasymachus and Socrates pertaining to this very topic. The view, as held by Thrasymachus, is that it doesn’t matter whether one is good or not, as long as they appear and are told they are good. While Socrates proclaimed that the good is the only way to be whether others see it or not. To see how Socrates won you will have to read the Republic, for it is beyond the scope of this post. But I urge you to read it for insight into your wanting to be called gentlemen.
Whether you are good or not, only you can know. Often times we are stuck in situations where doing a good deed appears to be a crime, and vice versa. It isn’t until people see it from more perspectives that they come to realize that what you had done was a good deed. The point is, if you base your life on acting or posting so that people see you as a gentlemen/gentlewoman than I propose you will lose who you really are. It is more important, in my opinion, to be who you regardless of who calls you what. Thomas Drier once said: “The world is what you are” - so be yourself.
trix stated:
This was funny and reminded me of the psychology course I took at uni. Are you a psychology major trix?
trix stated:
I think it comes from the patriarchal society that permeated the population of the world less than a hundred years ago, some argue it still does. I remember taking some interesting linguistic lessons and learning where swear words came from, certain phrases, and mannerisms that all relate to demeaning woman and putting them in a submissive light.
obscure_reality, maguis/gadfly, matthew e., thanks for the props yo. word.
Maguis,
i don’t have the republic with me, perhaps this is an error to be posting this without re-reading it first, but the idea that a label is enough to ensure a being’s essense is an old one. i think that if you look at other presocratics like paramenidies, errors only occur in mislabelling. following on the assumption that thought is only language, i think there is a very ancient strand of thought that being rightly called something is enough to be that thing. whether anyone truly can know for certain if he is a gentleman is beyone human limits, but it would be correct to have true opinion that you are a gentleman if you are one. this is a socratic description of the relationship’s entity and label. they must relate, but do not forge certainty or true opinion.
really? i believe that who we truly are is only the reputation that we pose to the world. all we have is our masks. but i am an extisentialist much more than a rationalist, so of course i disagree with the socratic answer…
yeah, i do take psych courses, but i’m not majoring. the madonna song abotu what it feels like for a girl says something about how girls can dress like boys and this is alright, but guys can’t, it’s demeaning for them to wear a skit. i think that this gentleman business is much the same. i do wear jeans some days. i think that the labels should be applied to women that are used for men. i guess i’m going on the much more radical point that i do think, on an abstract level, we are essentially the same.
Sure, but do you agree with it? A label doesn’t make a thing what it is outside of language. Ofcourse if you are going on the presumption that thinking is language then it would, but I would not jump to such conclusions. If you have an argument that you think is convincing for why I should believe thinking is language, I would be happy to hear it. Furthermore, it would matter enormously what you took ‘language’ to mean. The term has been thrown around the ring more times than Tyson by Evander and Buster together.
Trix stated:
Yes, but errors do also occur in ones understanding of labels/terms. For example, if I erroneously think you not to be a gentlewoman and think that calling you ‘gentlewoman’ means that you are not one, then I will have applied the label correctly to you while still having made a mistake in that I meant to apply a different word with a different meaning to you.
Trix stated:
So do you think that the first person to name a ‘rock’ called it so by some divine inspiration? Would I go about my life living wrongly if I rearranged all the labels and words in the English language (for myself) and decided to term monitors rocks, and rocks monitors? I agree that Greeks believed this, but I would suggest that doesn’t necessarily make it so. For instance, the Greeks believed that if you were given a name at birth, you would invariably fulfill the definition of your name. Hence, if your name meant ‘courage’, your life would invariably be filled with you acting courageously. But such a notion, though believed by presocratics, was questioned by Plato (or so I believe). For example, we had a very influential poster here named ‘Polemarchus’. Plato uses the name Polemarchus for one of the characters within the Republic. The word means ‘war-lord’ according to ancient greek standards. Presently it is used in the form ‘Polemic’ and refers to one who is forcefully arguable . Interestingly enough, Polemarchus was in no way hostile, aggressive, or any kind of war-lord whatsoever, both in the republic as well as the member on ILP. I would also propose to ask you what you think of a thing that doesn’t have a name yet? I also want to bring to your attention, that I heard that you can pay $100 or so dollars and name a star in the sky that hasn’t been named yet. So am I to understand, that if I call the planet Silicon Alien Planet that I will find Silicon based Aliens upon it?
Trix stated:
Unless you have issue with the definitions I have conveniently provided in my previous post for the word ‘gentleman’ I will now move to show you how you CAN know whether or not someone is a gentleman or not (within human limits). The first definition: “A man of gentle or noble birth or superior social position”. This proposition has certain elements in it that are either true of false. Either there is an thing which is a man or there isn’t. We can find out by looking at the things physiology, asking it, and by doing certain tests. Let’s simplify the “or’s” to the last one, either this man is born from a superior social position or he isn’t. We can verify or falsify this by looking at the social class he was born into and comparing it to the rest in order to see if it truly is superior. After which, we will have discovered whether or not this man is truly a gentleman within human limits.
The other definition: “A well-mannered and considerate man with high standards of proper behavior”
Here we would follow the same heuristics as in the previous definition, only that we would analyze the man’s actions for a duration of time that we would agree to being a good representative of his entire life, we may possibly one day be able to analyse his whole life. We would look to see whether he acted mannerly in the situations according to standards we knew him to have (by asking him or by looking at the society in which he lives to see what their standards are) and if he did then he is a gentleman, if he didn’t then he is not.
Trix stated:
Exactly for the reason on your first line is why I first said that you should only care about who you really are and not what others label you as. If you are a gentlewoman, you have the best access to verifying or falsifying that, and hence it shouldn’t matter what others think.
In the apology, Socrates was asked by friends to bring in his poor wife and family, to mention about his courage against the thirty tyrants, etc. But Socrates refused to do any of those things, because remaining true to character, he didn’t care about swaying other’s opinions or what other people thought of him, he just cared about the truth of the matter at hand.
Words are poor conveyors of thought but they are all we have. words only deal with things we have known from the past, if we encounter something we have not seen before we often have to invent something to describe it (concept, word, image) and sometimes that invention is guess what, a new word. Some people think that they have clearly killed and delineated something with a word when they have only seen one aspect of hundreds. Words qua words are not short cuts to knowledge.
Magius (aka Gadfly) said
I frequently use gentleman in the sense of 2 above. Few are nobly born anymore (give ungentle geneticists a few years though, ever seen Gattica?) and superior social positions are a faux pas in our milieu. I suppose all of those attributes in 2 (above) could apply to a woman, the only thing that would change is, guess what, the name.
Joseph Campbell in Primitive mythology says that all of the early Gods were women. Male Gods didn’t really come to the fore until the advent of civilization. Property rights in Ancient Egypt were with the woman (you can ensure the child belongs to the woman, right). This resulted in a lot of marriages that would be odd betrothals by today’s standards.
Is philosophy phallocentric? The statistics i have seen say that 90% of philosophy majors are males. But philosophy seems to be the most general of all the disciplines, and in that vein i welcome women into the fold. (I frequently wish more women would go into politics too). Anyone ever read any Hannah Arendht(sic?) or Simone De Beauvoir?
Definition: [n] a woman of refinement; “a chauffeur opened the door of the limousine for the grand lady”
[n] (United Kingdom) a woman of the peerage in Britain
[n] a polite name for any woman; “a nice lady at the library helped me”
See Also: adult female, Amy Lyon, baronage, baroness, begum, Borgia, countess, duchess, Duchess of Ferrara, female aristocrat, Godiva, grande dame, Hamilton, Lady Emma Hamilton, Lady Godiva, Lady-in-waiting, Lucrezia Borgia, madame, marchioness, marquise, Milady, peerage, woman
Webster’s 1913 Dictionary
Definition: \La"dy, n.; pl. {Ladies}. [OE. ladi, l[ae]fdi, AS.
hl?fdige, hl?fdie; AS. hl[=a]f loaf + a root of uncertain
origin, possibly akin to E. dairy. See {Loaf}, and cf.
{Lord}.]
A woman who looks after the domestic affairs of a family;
a mistress; the female head of a household.
Agar, the handmaiden of Sara, whence comest thou,
and whither goest thou? The which answered, Fro the
face of Sara my lady. --Wyclif (Gen.
xvi. 8.).
A woman having proprietary rights or authority; mistress;
– a feminine correlative of lord. ``Lord or lady of high
degree.‘’ --Lowell.
Of all these bounds, even from this line to this, .
. . We make thee lady. --Shak.
A woman to whom the particular homage of a knight was
paid; a woman to whom one is devoted or bound; a
sweetheart.
The soldier here his wasted store supplies, And
takes new valor from his lady's eyes. --Waller.
A woman of social distinction or position. In England, a
title prefixed to the name of any woman whose husband is
not of lower rank than a baron, or whose father was a
nobleman not lower than an earl. The wife of a baronet or
knight has the title of Lady by courtesy, but not by
right.
A woman of refined or gentle manners; a well-bred woman;
– the feminine correlative of gentleman.
A wife; – not now in approved usage. --Goldsmith.
(Zo["o]l.) The triturating apparatus in the stomach of a
lobster; – so called from a fancied resemblance to a
seated female figure. It consists of calcareous plates.
{Ladies’ man}, a man who affects the society of ladies.
{Lady altar}, an altar in a lady chapel. --Shipley.
{Lady chapel}, a chapel dedicated to the Virgin Mary.
{Lady court}, the court of a lady of the manor.
{Lady court}, the court of a lady of the manor.
{Lady crab} (Zo["o]l.), a handsomely spotted swimming crab
({Platyonichus ocellatus}) very common on the sandy shores
of the Atlantic coast of the United States.
{Lady fern}. (Bot.) See {Female fern}, under {Female}, and
Illust. of {Fern}.
{Lady in waiting}, a lady of the queen’s household, appointed
to wait upon or attend the queen.
{Lady Mass}, a Mass said in honor of the Virgin Mary.
–Shipley.
{Lady of the manor}, a lady having jurisdiction of a manor;
also, the wife of a manor lord.
{Lady’s maid}, a maidservant who dresses and waits upon a
lady. --Thackeray.
{Our Lady}, the Virgin Mary.
\La"dy, a.
Belonging or becoming to a lady; ladylike. ``Some lady
trifles.‘’ --Shak.
\La"dy`
The day of the annunciation of the Virgin Mary, March 25. See
{Annunciation}.
And that, my good lady, is all i have to say today.
“Whether anyone truely can know for certain if he is a gentleman is beyond human limits”
Gadfly:
“Unless you have issue with the definitions I have conveniently provided in my previous post for the word “gentleman” I will not move to show you how you CAN know whether or not…”
Is it not the champion of this forum’s political correctness, Gadfly of ILP himself, in person, speaking in a rather “condescending and arrogant” manner to another member of the forum? Is it not because the person he is adressing is presumably a young lady? Now, may it occur that he speaks in this manner because he actually thinks (and that’s a dreadful thing to admit) that young ladies are inferior to young men? (Ah, sorry, you don’t like being called young, I forgot…) Or maybe he is just afraid, that the young lady may turn out to be smarter then him, and takes precautionary measures ahead of the possible disaster?
Now, I tell you what, Gadfly of ILP, champion of political correctness. Instead of preaching banalities to young ladies, in a very elevated and mannerly way, you should have listened more attentively to what the young lady has to say. She is making a very good point.
Being a gentleman implyes corresponding to certain high standards of honesty and magnanimity, readiness for self-sacrifice. And before you die, you can never be sure, that your conduct will always correspond to those high standards, let alone a very important fact, that it is not up to the person himself to decide, whether he fulfills them or not. So, I agree with the quoted statement of trix completely.
But this leads me to another question, not linked directly to the topic of this thread, but very relevant, nevertheless. We are all unanimously for silencing, pushing out of the forum and sending away Triple J, by any means possible. But do we have a moral right to do this?
Calm down Somov, I don’t think it was meant to be condescending, it’s hard to judge the tone of plain text, the rest of his post didn’t seem to be to me and I feel you’ve slightly quoted out of context there.
As for JJJ I certainly feel no guilt, he was constantly condescending and I am not at all ashamed to say I was the first to call him a charlatan and still stand by that. I tried to bite my tongue, in fact many didn’t bother posting anything against him for a couple of days even after I took the first opening shot, but I’m glad he was asked to leave as he wasn’t contributing anything to the forums but self-promoting rubbish. I did consider the fact that he was a person but I don’t let my Dad get away with fallicious or bigoted arguments and he’s the same age as JJJ so I felt no wrong in attacking what I saw as ignorance. I don’t suffer fools. Period. If he had been allowed to keep posting I think it would have driven many worthwhile posters away from these forums.
On topic, I think trix made a very good point about the ‘subset’ that women possess in relation to words such as gentleman. It is historical weight, all the greats of the past tended to be men and thus ‘Lady’ has a connotation of subservience that doesn’t fit with the noble ‘Gentleman’. I am reminded at this point of the Three Muskateers and the character in it called ‘The Lady’ (or is it ‘Lady’). She certainly doesn’t possess the characteristics of Marshall McD’s highlighted text (though I do wonder if that’s because it was the closest word that could be found in translation), and yet it doesn’t seem inconsistent to think of her as a Lady.
But as for being unable to define whether you are a Gentleman (ignoring the noble birth definition), I think it is something we can actually attribute to someone as it is a societal term, it is given by peers to someone and thus is knowable. It doesn’t suffer from a problem of knowledge (as trix seemed to be suggesting) because you can determine its truth by asking a gentleman’s peers. Now that he may actually be a wolf in sheep’s clothing is actually beside the point, until society discovers his true colours he will still be a Gentleman. Thus it’s not just at death when he can be called a Gentleman but throughout life until he acts otherwise.
you mentioned in your last post a platonic account of words and knoweldge to suggest a reason for my desire to be called a gentleman – assuming that being called one, was enough, for me to be a gentleman. this view that you suggested is an old one, and i was trying to reconstruct the argument for you. i’ve actually posted a thread that argues against one of its assumptions – that thought is only language. i know the arguement quiet well. i do not agree with it. i thought i voiced my dissent by writing:
sigh perhaps it is because i did not write platonic answer. but i am not going to assume what plato thinks because i think that would require a vigourous study that i have not undertaken. also, i suspect that my point in my last post was lost on you as you continued to dissect the failures of the ancient greek arguement. again, if you perhaps has read to the next paragraph, you would have seen the waste of this since it appears we are in argreement.
so you can gain certainity maguis? wow. wow. that’s just, wow. to first of all assume that there are universal, constant social orders of which men are always born into is wow. feel free to accept this as a given, since, you know, we are all certain here that something like the great chain of being exists. right, then we can compare. wow. so you think that a man born into a social order in england, for instance, is the same as one in africa? or maybe there isn’t, but everything is just relative to where you are born and then you find your order there. so we can accept the basis of relativity but still hold absolutes. wow. this theory sucks man! i’m being sarcastic…i can argue the same for the other definition. logical validity does not translate to soundness or truth. that takes a lot more work.
and for this reason do i argue that one’s beliefs/standards for determining if they are a gentleman are subjective and relative – at one point in one’s life you can say, yeah, i was a gentleman when i was 35 years old and later, when one is 62, they can say hell no, i was a complete jerk when i was 35. the standards for which people set for subjective descriptions are not permenante, usually, and thus are in a constant state of flux. for any given moment, at a given event (when point A clearly intersects with point B) can your beliefs about yourself really be asserted – but then, the moment is so fleeting that any pronouncement is out of date. the only truth is in death because the moment then ends.
I stated:
“Unless you have issue with the definitions I have conveniently provided in my previous post for the word “gentleman” I will now move to show you how you CAN know whether or not…”
Somov replied:
Unless there is something amiss here, I don’t understand how what I said above is “condescending and arrogant”? In fact it would appear that Somov is merely using Ben’s words for JJJ and using them against me. If you’ve got some kind of a grudge Somov, come out and say it instead of playing games. No one has said that I am this forum’s political correctness champion. You’ve jumped to conclusions for the second time now. I replied in to the first one quickly, honestly, and politely. I intend to do the same in this post, but I can’t promise anything.
Somov stated:
First of all, I treat everyone equally until shown that I have to treat you otherwise, which is dependant on your words and not your sex, ethnic origin, age, or any other discriminative characteristic. When making strong accusations like this, you should always be weary. You could not only hurt someones feelings, but you could tarnish their reputation as well.
Somov stated:
Hypotheticals are dangerous, it appears you are merely playing around and haven’t thought twice about what it means to say about someone that they think women to be inferior. Your insult about it being dreadful to admit that I think will be ignored.
Somov stated:
Maybe this, or maybe that - I’m sure if I let you, you can go on like this all day. You have not only misjudged me and labelled me, but you have also demeaned me without cause. As far as respect goes, I have none left for you. You have said alot, without saying anything.
Somov stated:
You either don’t know a thing about political correctness, nor anything about manners. I didn’t say she isn’t making a good point, we were merely discussing the matter. Give me one instance of something I said to Trix that was a banality?
Somov stated:
Sure, if that is the definition you want to give it. I don’t mind either way.
Somov stated:
That’s lovely and I’m happy for you. The only problem is that that’s not what Trix said. We can, as I have said before, decipher whether someone has acted as a gentleman/gentlewoman by looking at certain characteristics in the situation. We can also decipher whether someone has been a gentleman/gentlewoman over a period of time by also looking at their actions and characteristics in the situations. What we can’t do, and I have not proclaimed that we can, but you appear to argue I had, is predict whether or not someone will act as a gentleman/gentlewoman in a situation that hasn’t happened yet, ie future. You are committing the Straw Man Fallacy. Which is when someone misrepresents someone elses view and argues against the misrepresented view as though it was the original persons argument. One has a closer idea of whether they are a gentleman/gentlewoman in the case of motivations. If you sacrifice yourself, are honest, and magnanimous only in those situations where you have everything to gain and nothing to lose - then other’s won’t be able to tell the difference. But you will. For only you know whether or not what you did was for truly noble objectives and not for something in return.
Somov stated:
Now you are not only labelling and judging me, but you have taken it upon yourself to label and judge everyone on ILP. It is not true that WE ARE ALL unanimously for silencing, pushing out of the forum and sending away JJJ, YOU might be - since you appear to have been projecting throughout this post - but all WE wanted was to share our concerns and have JJJ seriously consider them, argue back why he shouldn’t be that way, or to accept and abide by them. Instead he did neither and simply went around making fun of all of us, making really inane posts, and irritating everyone. I didn’t want him out of the forum, I just wanted him to stop being the way he was, and to post like the rest of us. I’m sure there are forums out there that will only be too happy to accept him into their ranks. Lastly, this board doesn’t claim to be democratic or moral - whether you like or dislike something that is happening doesn’t mean it will stop. Ben (admin) and the other moderators are VERY good with listening and responding to concerns (generally). In fact, often times suggestions are implemented right away. Regardless of all that, even on moral grounds I can give you plenty of reasons why banning him was the best thing for the majority.
somov…
i assure that gadfly doesnt need my defense, but their is strong evidence of your jumping to conclusions. hell, we could make a board game out of them.
i see your arguments, and it is possible that you have some validity among them. but put it into another perspective, if you truly wanted gadfly to see error in his attitude towards trix, then shouldnt you find a more tactful way of presenting these facts to him? it is merely a sugestion.
there is no need for that kind of sarcasm. especially in this thread. its pretty apparent to me that you arent sorry.
Are you saying that I was the one who proposed that you being called a gentleman was enough for you to be one? If so, then that’s false I was arguing about whether or not someone is a gentleman calling them one doesn’t make it so. Regardless of whether we look at Plato or not. I simply used Plato as an example that jumped in my mind at the time.
Trix stated:
If I respond to something you say with an account of the view from Plato, I think it is safe to assume I realize it is an old one. Otherwise, why would I be giving Plato’s view? Furthermore, I am thoroughly confused about why when you make a post, I respond to it, and you follow up with a reconstruction of my argument. What is the point? I think you may be putting to much work on your plate, I don’t expect you to reconstruct my arguments for me. I expect you to make your argument and question mine where you disagree or think it unclear - same with me.
Trix stated:
Further confusion, okay, if I understand the above correctly then I need the following cleared up…if you don’t agree that thought is language than why do you need to be called a gentleman in order to believe yourself to be one? Especially if thought isn’t language it shouldn’t matter what people say, it should matter what they think. Often times the two are completely different.
Trix stated:
Where did I say that? I simply said there is a way in which you can decipher whether or not someone is a gentleman or not. You are drawing far reaching conclusions, as well as, misrepresenting my words and my point.
Trix stated:
I don’t assume that there are universals, where did I? I didn’t assume constant social orders of which men are always born into, IT WAS THE DEFINITION INCLUDED IN ‘GENTLEMAN’!
Trix stated:
No, and where did I say so? Please, quit assuming. Defining someone as gentleman has nothing to do with whether they come from England, Africa, or Australia.
Trix stated:
Now you’re just arguing with yourself.
Trix stated:
Where did I say it does? I will say that logic consists of both validity and soundness.
Note: I don’t appreciate your constant sarcasm or the way in which your last post was written to me. I haven’t disrespected you in any way, I don’t expect you to disrespect me either, especially without warrant.
you’ve completly missed my point. i don’t think you’ve understood what i’ve argued. from your deciphering of my post, this is how it seems to me. you chop up arguments, try to translate the bits into different, independent arguements and then attempt to refute them. why you do this, i have no idea! good lord! and i do think your tone is incredibly arrogant and superflous, but i agree with matt and obscure_reality, i think that this is probably how you are so you don’t see this. i think this is why you argue with this cut and paste method. try to take my post as a whole and look for the main points that i will outline for you:
(a) rejection of the platonic relationship between labels and essences (in response to you raising this point as an explaination)
(b) rejection of constant universals
(c) rejection of certain knowledge following nature of time and being
(c) conclusion that can never know with certainty if you are a gentleman or anything for that matter, until at moment of death.
this is incredibly off my topic, so any questions with understanding on how to do philosophy will greatly be appreciated by pm-ing me.
Why is it you are so certain that my missing your point and not understanding is my fault? Could it be that you have failed to express yourself appropriately, clearly? When someone doesn’t understand me, I do my best to explain myself in as many different ways as possible. For importantly, I have never labelled someone arrogant because they didn’t understand what I meant.
Trix stated:
Well you got it all wrong. Yes I chop up the argument, not only the argument but each sentence, and even each word. But I don’t do this to make independent arguments, but to make different points on the same argument. Furthermore, I don’t chop the argument up SO THAT I can refute it. I chop it up so that I can be sure that I understood each part of it correctly in order to understand the whole. How can I understand the whole without understanding the parts? Remember, my chief impedus is always to understand…furthermore, I don’t simply refute but I bring objections or contradiction to points and ask you how you might sort it out. Which is to say, that I am aware that there may be something I am missing and there is no contradiction at all. You have misconstrude this to be some sort of a debating competition.
Trix stated:
What is it about my tone that is arrogant? Quote me, show me. Furthermore, I don’t recall Matt or Obscure_Reality ever saying that they think I am arrogant and superfluous…I don’t know if they want to come in and correct you or comply with what you said…but would you mind pointing me to where they said that?
Trix stated:
I always do and have, including with your post. But like I said, if some parts of your argument don’t make sense, it also wouldn’t make sense for me to talk about your post as a whole. Instead, it makes sense for me to talk about the parts. In logic there are two ways of seeing if a statement is true. One is the style or form of argument they have chosen, and the second is their premises. On both counts there are issues with your argument. This is nothing personal, it’s philosophy. You may recall that when philosophy journals and articles are printed, they are criticisms and proposals of other arguments based in, mainly, logic and language. Show me how I have done anything but that.
Trix stated:
In response to a), could you elaborate more?
In response to b) I agree. Not to sound nick-picky but isn’t ‘constant’ assumed within ‘universals’?
In response to c) what is this certain knowledge that is rejected that follows nature of time and being?
In response to Conclusion: Within the realms of our own constructs, for instance language or math there is certainty to be found, in my opinion. Much like Hume brings our attention to Relations of Ideas (mental) and Matters of Fact (real world/matter) and says that there is no certainty in Matters of Fact, but there is in Relations of Ideas. For example, 1+1=2 within the construct of math is certainty. Relating it to real life is where the problem, I think, arises. Hence, with words in their construct of language, whether with gentleman or any other word, there is a certainty to it which is held in its definition. The application of that definition to real life is where the problem begins, or so I believe.
You last comment suggests that I don’t know how to do philosophy. This is your last warning, I do not take well to insults, and I have taken quite a few from you without any retaliation.
“Unless you have issue with the definitions I have conveniently provided…”
Gadfly:
“Unless something amiss here, I don’t understand how what I said above is “condescending and arrogant”?”
Well, if you don’t understand that, I have no way to prove it, since it is an ethical judgement, and not a description of the fact. On the other hand, I can remind you, that the point, to which you were answering, had no relation to the definitions that you gave. Answering in this way, you ignored the very logic of Trix’ arguement, and tried to impose your own logic, which was not just “arrogant”, but essentially showed lack of respect for Trix.
“If you’ve got some kind of a grudge Somov, come out and say it instead of playing games”
What do you mean – “playing games”? It sounds like some kind of accusation, but I don’t see the essense of it. I made several ironic suggestions concerning your manners and your motives, you were infuriated by them (don’t tell me again I’m jumping to conclusions, that sounds pretty ridiculous), and the result is, I’m now telling you plainly, that you show lack of respect for people you are talking to, and you are unable to stand criticism. Is my point clear enough?
“No one has said I’m this forum’s political correctness champion. You’ve jumped to conclusions for the second time now.”
Surely I didn’t mean, that “champion of political correctness” is your official title. So, I didn’t think I had to contact forum’s administration to ensure I wasn’t making a mistake. Your accusation of “jumping to conclusions” at this point shows your total disregard for logic and common sense.
Somov:
“Is it not because the person he is adressing is presumably a young lady?”
Gadfly:
“when making strong accusations like this…”
It was not an accusation – it was an ironic suggestion. Don’t you see question mark at the end of the sentence?
Somov:
“Ah, sorry, you don’t like being called young, I forgot…) Or maybe he is just afraid, that the young lady may turn out to be smarter then him, and takes precautionary measures ahead of the possible disaster?”
Gadfly:
“You have not only misjuidged me and labelled me, but you have also demeaned me without cause.”
Now - these are really strong accusations. But I don’t see any ground for any one of them.
I did not “label” you, and I did not demean you.
Gadfly:
“As far as respect goes, I have none left for you.”
You are free to respect or not to respect me.
But I don’t see any point in answering your comments any further.
. Interestingly enough, Polemarchus was in no way hostile, aggressive, or any kind of war-lord whatsoever, both in the republic as well as the member on ILP. I would also propose to ask you what you think of a thing that doesn’t have a name yet? I also want to bring to your attention, that I heard that you can pay $100 or so dollars and name a star in the sky that hasn’t been named yet. So am I to understand, that if I call the planet Silicon Alien Planet that I will find Silicon based Aliens upon it?