Apparently you have no intention of answering any of my questions, since you’ve been ignoring them for the last handful of posts, and you appear to only wish to speak according to your terms and no one elses. You make outrageous statements about life without backing anything up, worse off, you make outrageous statements about me without backing anything up. You pay little attention to my posts, which explains your obtuse meanderings about the topics at hand. Furthermore, you continue to label me without warrant or evidence, most people don’t react well to this, I am one of them, prepare to be ignored…
And like that he was gone.
…that’s all I have to say
To D:
fsdhgkjghfdbkjfd;vnmn;nbiuhpmvfv/fo!!!
Does having great wealth make you more intelligent? Does the possesion of great knowledge in one field instantly become applicable to all fields? Is philosophy dead? This forum has answered the questions to all three. That answer being no! To ponder thought in this realm or another is to exist! The foundation upon which we stand and do battle today was laid long ago by all the great philosophers who expounded their thoughts for posterities sake. To share a view which you hold between your ears with the world is to open yourself up to critisisum before the sentence is even finished reverberating through the air. I think therefore I am. This helps answer the question in a more comtemporary manner. If I verbalize my view on something I philsophize some aspect of life. Attention the chicken has left the building! Fortune cookie philosophy? Thank you!
Albert Einstein was once quoted as saying that “The problem with we scientists is that we’re not very good philosophers,” and I think the general phenomenon that he hinted at is manifesting itself again here: namely that scientists are not properly trained in the philosophical method. I suspect that D, lacking a proper philosophical education cannot properly comprehend the, ah, ‘misinterpretations’ and inevitable consequences of the ideas he espouses.
Distilled to its essentials, the lexical meaning of the term ‘reality’ refers to the way things actually are. If, as D maintains, language is the only form of conciouness/existence then it can be said that this is ‘the way things actually are’, or rather that this is the ‘reality’. ‘Truth’, it seems to me, is a property of a proposition that informs its correspondences to the way things actually are. Either the proposition’s content actually describes the ways things actually are, and is thus called ‘true’, or it does not, and thus called ‘false’. If the statement “There is not truth, only interpretations” describes the way things actually are (namely, that there is no truth, only interpretations) then it is ‘true’.
D has asserted a variety of propositions that he seems to think actually describes the way things actually are: Philosophy is word scrabble; philosophy is dead; our language communities are the only ultimate reality; there are only interpretations, et cetera.
What frustrates me is that D does not seem to realize that he is, at base level, employing my philosophy to demonstrate his. He denies all reality beyond language, yet he referes to my arguments as things (note his own terminlogy, “that,” which makes reference to a referrent, and its context does not suggest that it is referring to words, but to something else). If there is no reality beyond word construction, then what could be possibly be referring to? This also occurs later when he refers to “…this game of Philosophy…” Furthermore, would he not have to agree with the proposition, “D holds to a language construct metaphysical theory.”? Does it not represent the way things actually are?
Elsewhere he writes emphatically, “I also deny the existence of any sort of objective reality.” But if everything is language, is he really doing anything? Or is he just writing that out? I cannot resist the temptation to ask, “Is D using language?”
One almost feels like pulling one’s hair out with awe mingled with immense impatience when he sweeps away all of reality, ethrones language, and then wants to blurt out statments about something called ‘Socrates’? On his own convictions, can he do this? He claims everything as interpretation and then wants to quote people (Franz Kafka & Jimi Hendrix), implying that he actually understands what both were getting at and furthmore that it actually justifies his position. On his own position of interpretation, is this possible?! If he wants to deny truth and falsity, then can he say that Kafka and Hendrix were right in what they wrote?
“Why does the world have to be coherant?”
To quote the Indian philosopher Ravi Zacharias (who was faced with the same question), “Do you want a coherant answer to that?”
from your midst
No, it is not the truth. Derrida has never said anything like that. Only people who have never actually read Derrida say that. Derrida says that meaning is only valid in absence.
And how do you know that this meaning is what Derrida intended?
If you truly believe as you expound, then why do you write a response to anyone?
In even attempting to communicate your ideas you undermine the very “theory” that you claim to hold. If you do hold to it honestly.
I myself am not all that familiar with Derrida’s ideas but it seems that he might be getting at {something} in that we all bring our own experiences with the words that we use and the context with which we use them, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t find some common ground upon which to base an understanding of what we might be talking about.
gone
philosophy is never complete. That’s what postmodernism has to tell. The essence of life is beyond characterisation. I think people in the future want more realistic politics that don’t play on binary opinions when it comes to how to take care of materialism, but instead take what we all have in common into consideration. Politics today is based on material distribution, but as it happens people find there are other aspects in society than being rich. Life quality has to do about decreasing conflicts and not suppressing the potential of what we all have within. In that perspective, I certainly think there is room for politics that doesn’t have materialism as a preoccupation. So, a philosophy that departs from the old-fashioned Western one will probably be “invented” in the future. So, both right and leftist politics in the old sense will disappear, because they lack something. Thus, philosophy will always develop and never die, until people realise there is no philosophy needed other than using the potential of what’s within. As the essence of life can’t be proved, there is need for quite a revolution in the West…
I suppose the future is a postmodern attitude with an as little incomplete philosophy as possible in practise in society.
“The ideas are not appropriated from your previous posts.”
The argument wasn’t that you were conciously appropriating my arguments into your system of thought, but rather that you were, at base level, using my position to argue your position. You asserted propositions making reference to external referrents (i.e. reality) that you cognitively assumed to be ‘true’, each of which you explicitly repudiated. My response was to demonstrate to you, and other users, that the time-honoured elements of philosophy (viz. truth, reality, propositions, validity, cogency, contradictions) still emerge and get used even when you try to advance a position that denies them. It’s quite similar to the Law of Noncontradiction. You cannot deny the Law of Noncontradiction without using it in the process. It is similar with all your work as well.
To quote the Indian philosopher Ravi Zacharias yet again, “Even a denial of meaning must be meaningfully stated to be considered.” This quote, I think, candidly demonstrates the above arguments, and succinctly states my case.
The constancy of the changing world continually nurishes the ideas and thoughts behind the existence of everything. The forms by which man relates everything is progressively defined through arguments, dialogues and debates that searches for the truth. Supposing that reflective inquiry has come to its absolute state, then it would be impossible to say whether the generalization is sufficient to answer the question(s) thought about by mere propositions, postulates, theorems, etc. It is not the satisfaction involoved that thinking requires reflection or answers but expanding, revising and redefining the ideas that would give life to the world’s existence. The scientific discoveries of great scientists transpires our present consciousness of reality that affects the reasons presupposing what is true? or what is real? Philosophy is a never ending pursuit for truth and love for wisdom. It is the process of reflective inquiry rather than an end to be reached.
The game is up. I have no response to TdBs last post.
The author of these posts and the posts themselves are, of course, imaginary. Nevertheless it is clear that such persons as the writer of these posts not only may, but positively must, exist in our society, when we consider the circumstances in the midst of which our society is formed.
I am trying to expose to you more distinctly than is commonly done, one of the characters of the recent past. He is one of the representatives of a generation still living.
In these posts, entitled “D” this person introduces himself and his views, and, as it were, tries to explain the causes owing to which he has made his appearance and was bound to make his appearance in your midst.
“Get out and sit in the sun or the moonlight, because one day you will die. This is the only piece of advice I can give anyone.” - D
what a pretentious arse. get some real training in philosophy. any one can pretend to be profound
X or D or whatever you want to call yourself, going back and deleting your own posts is pathetic and cowardly. You may think you are making a profound statement by running away like this, but you are not. All you are doing is wrecking this, admittedly interesting, discussion for anyone else who wants to read it. This is not acceptable under any circumstances and will not be tolerated.
Congratulations, you have the honour of being the first user ever banned from these boards. Go away and don’t come back.
I have to admit that was kinda cool…
Regardless, I am curious to know if any of you other users agreed with my arguments or had any disputations. Where my arguments on target or was there some legitimacy to D’s that I was overlooking. This discussion shouldn’t end with D’s migration from matter to anti-matter.
everything and anything is the way it is becuase it wants to be that way…why question what cant be answered…i like also to knwo the answers to the questions all men and women ask…but before asking…think about it…then if you come to no end by pondering and studying then ask