Must be Dasein?
Probably. Or affectance. One or the other.
That will result in an eternal loop from which neither will be able to escape.
If they keep this up, in three months, Mr. Reasonable and I will have a moderated debate, I’ll defend Iambigious’ Dasein, you can defend James’ stance. We will let the whole forum decide!
Yes, you and turd are quite the pair in ridiculing the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein. And admittedly my preoccupation with it pertaining to the conflicting goods that have precipitated conflicting human behaviors now for, say, thousands of years?
It’s just that neither one of you will actually engage in a substantive discussion of it.
Again, ask turd: I created a thread in order to do just that. This one: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=189516
See you there, okay?
After all, isn’t it about time that you posted something that is at least in the vicinity of philosophy?
I’d like to see Turd and James go at it. I wonder what that would look like.
Go over to the sociology thread, you will find the after effects, James had to be admitted into the emergency room after every run in.
But he is a minor issue, we don’t have too many run ins. I’m more interested in science in history, he is more into theology, so we don’t have much in terms of interactions. Must be Dasein.
How 'bout Maia and Blurry?
How 'bout Moreno and Joker?
How 'bout Arcturus Descending and Kriswest?
We should start placing bets.
Are you asking Mr. Reasonable and I to take a stance on a idea between Maia and Blurry?
Only thing I know about Maia is she has a eye for history (maybe I could of worded that better), and Blurry is a lush with a chronic desire for Smears. I guess I can debate a rather generic pro-British, anti-catholic stance, just pretend to be a Tudor flop for Maia “Ohhhhhhhh those pervy Catholics, long live the queen!” but what would Smears say? “Ohhhhhhh I really wanna suck my own dick”…
Lamest debate ever. No point to that, wouldn’t even be funny.
I’m saying we grab Maia and Blurry and throw them into the ring. Give 'em a topic to debate over.
They will have no choice in the matter. They either debate or get banned from ILP.
Then we place our bets.
I really don’t support one on one debates, more from my experiences in actual large, philosophy debates in person. When you see too people get stuck in a back in forth, a lot of the audience becomes mesmerized, but I can usually spot the way it needs to go forward if they were better read in their own positions, and how they are getting caught up in recursive patterns. The cafe in the main philosophy group I was a member if eventually put a cushioned bunch in the corner for me and I would just sit back there in silence, listening bored to death, until someone insisted I talked, and I would just ruin everyone’s arguments for the last two hours.
Its why you never see me volunteer for the academic debate section Carleas holds so dear, It causes me to chuckle too hard. You can see it in how I debate too, sometimes I take a post-modernist approach within a thread, looking back on the thread, while it is unfolding, it hasn’t even hit that subject matter yet… but it will.
Your mock up sucks. Don’t go after rivalries or seeming opposites. Go after when one member already gets what the other member is, having been at that stage… but the other refuses to believe it, is offended by the idea.
Peter Kropotkin > Joker… because Peter WAS a Anarchist, but now us a statist socialist (aka Fascist). All of Jokers arguments are I Want Anarchy because socialism isn’t happening, constantly bitches and moans about it… in other words, he is a closet socialist. Peter Kropotkin could dominate here.
Me with Zinnati… he still absolutely doesn’t believe that the US has a shitload of translations, multiple temples and Ashrams… thinks I’m a novice in eastern philosophy, world affairs, history, etc. This will be ongoing for years.
Tithonius and Gib… the saga shall continue.
Satyr and Only Humean (we all know eventually, despite the ban, it will go down one day).
Dan and Phonetic Ethics… wouldn’t mind seeing a magic debate.
We could say we discovered perpetual motion.
That would… give Ecmandu a glee stroke, being the first to discover Perpetual Motion, plotting how to stick nipple clamps to the two of them to power the nation. Noble Peace Prize for Science on that one.
He’s too crazy man.
I thought asians were into kung fu. That being said being beat up, punched, feeling in danger didn’t give me any profound philosophies from the experience, so I think you are proposing a red herring, a wild goose chase of sorts.
To me that simply means a maturation can occur in good or bad ways, and doesn’t pertain to a given aggregate like manliness/womanhood etc]. It doesn’t say why ‘youthful’ is thence attached to goodness. I assume what is meant is that, one can grow-up/mature and remain youthful, because mature and bad are disconnected, and there may be one without the other.
If what is meant is that one can mature and remain youthful, kinda contradicting Nietzschean morality/philosophy/ethos, then why not?
A mature youth would be android-like imho, they would see other maturations as virtually animalistic, based in the emotion/idiotic.
I eat neither seafood nor goose, do unlikely Trixie.
I was reacting to worship of innocence and childhood. What does profound have to do with it? That’s not the purpose. The purpose is to test one’s limits in real world, not one’s limits in the fantasy world. The more time you spend in the fantasy world, the shorter your limits will be in the real world. Until the day comes around, and you really become a helpless child who is living in your own fantasy world, shielding yourself from the world with “profound” things.