Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

For real philosophers.

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 2:54:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Human reasoning is fallible. Therefore, we cannot evaluate to what precise extent we are fallible, because we can't create certain methods for doing so. Hence we cannot know anything.

What is the typical philosophical response to this? And if you can think of one, how are you sure that there isn't any problem with it? In short, how do you rule out all the incompatibilities of X not being the case when you don't even know what they are?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 2:57:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title. I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 4:43:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 2:57:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title. I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.

All philosophy is speculation, and most "real philosophers" would deem it ultimately aimless.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 5:43:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 4:00:51 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It is interesting how, following a near-death experience, one finds he has very little to say about his encounter with death, but a great deal to say and recall about his life.

I'm afraid I don't follow your analogy?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 5:52:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Descartes assumed a benevolent God who wouldn't deceive him, didn't he? As regards Cody's analogy, or whatever you'd call it, I think he's saying that life's all we've got and so shut the f*ck up and live it how it is, don't get lost in nothingness. And I'd agree with that.

F*ck the devil, I love it.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 5:59:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 4:43:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 2:57:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title. I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.

All philosophy is speculation, and most "real philosophers" would deem it ultimately aimless.

Not so: http://philpapers.org...
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 6:01:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 5:59:47 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:43:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 2:57:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title. I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.

All philosophy is speculation, and most "real philosophers" would deem it ultimately aimless.

Not so: http://philpapers.org...

How does this survey refute my assertion?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 6:04:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 6:01:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 5:59:47 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:43:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 2:57:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title. I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.

All philosophy is speculation, and most "real philosophers" would deem it ultimately aimless.

Not so: http://philpapers.org...

How does this survey refute my assertion?

I just want to make clear that I applaud your search for this kind of empirical knowledge. However, in the past (and here to a large extent as well), you've all but demanded an answer to the question "what is truth?" thinking that there is some sort of valid consensus or "empirical" answer to such a question. My point is that whatever conclusion you reach, will more than likely be erroneous, for the reasons you've already cited in your OP.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 6:21:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We can assert phenomenological certainty in some things (that is, we can describe how things look to us). I would suggest that this isn't a lower order of description, because the way a thing looks is the way its appearance actually, undoubtedly is. This might be commonly overlooked.

Importantly, there are some things which are nothing but appearance, with that being the extent of their reality. Subjectivity and the subjective self (the self-presenting self) are examples of such things; Descartes called it "the ego", but it's the same notion. He then found a state of the ego which he could not, even in principle, doubt the reality of: the fact that he was doubting.

His own method of skepticism stabilized itself on the fulcrum of a real subjective state. He then drew some less clear ontological conclusions.

But the self-appearing "ego" cannot suppose its own appearance to itself a deceit, because that very appearance is its reality. It is not the representation of a thing; it is a presentation of the thing itself.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 6:33:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This reminds me of something I read in Chris Langan's Theory of Theories:

"To demonstrate the existence of undecidability, G"del used a simple trick called self-reference. Consider the statement "this sentence is false." It is easy to dress this statement up as a logical formula. Aside from being true or false, what else could such a formula say about itself? Could it pronounce itself, say, unprovable? Let"s try it: "This formula is unprovable". If the given formula is in fact unprovable, then it is true and therefore a theorem. Unfortunately, the axiomatic method cannot recognize it as such without a proof. On the other hand, suppose it is provable. Then it is self-apparently false (because its provability belies what it says of itself) and yet true (because provable without respect to content)! It seems that we still have the makings of a paradox"a statement that is "unprovably provable" and therefore absurd.

But what if we now introduce a distinction between levels of proof? For example, what if we define a metalanguage as a language used to talk about, analyze or prove things regarding statements in a lower-level object language, and call the base level of G"del"s formula the "object" level and the higher (proof) level the "metalanguage" level? Now we have one of two things: a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, and thus recognized as a theorem conveying valuable information about the limitations of the object language, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, which, though uninformative, is at least no paradox. Voil": self-reference without paradox! It turns out that "this formula is unprovable" can be translated into a generic example of an undecidable mathematical truth. Because the associated reasoning involves a metalanguage of mathematics, it is called "metamathematical"."

http://megafoundation.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 6:46:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 2:54:24 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Human reasoning is fallible. Therefore, we cannot evaluate to what precise extent we are fallible, because we can't create certain methods for doing so. Hence we cannot know anything.

If we cannot know anything, then we cannot know that human reason is fallible.

What is the typical philosophical response to this? And if you can think of one, how are you sure that there isn't any problem with it? In short, how do you rule out all the incompatibilities of X not being the case when you don't even know what they are?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 7:03:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 4:00:51 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It is interesting how, following a near-death experience, one finds he has very little to say about his encounter with death, but a great deal to say and recall about his life.

The Fool: Which "one" are you talking about? I have had a quite a few encounters with death, And that's all I talk about, to myself, and even the Grim Reaper to himself. You dainty little devil you.
<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 8:09:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Eitan_Zohar: Human reasoning is fallible. Therefore, we cannot evaluate to what precise extent we are fallible, because we can't create certain methods for doing so. Hence we cannot know anything.

The Fool: Whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute. Who's "we"?

Knowledge of what is fallible, depends upon, comparison of its opposite. For if what you say is true, then you yourself, refute yourself, as you cannot conclude anything. And thus no "hence", nor, nor, "therefore". Or hereafter. And so on, and so forth. And ad infinitum. And again, one more for fun. Hit me baby one more time.

But, if it is inconclusive, then it is true, that, human reasoning is fallible, and is not fallible; thus, some of human reasoning is fallible, but not all can be fallible. For, we can learn by our mistakes, and synonymously we can learn that we were mistaken. So with every mistake comes new knowledge. For you have just learned, yet again, that you've been mistaken at least one more time. To yourself, that is, and my monkey. But you can rest assure, that we will not hit you, at least not this time.

Eitan_Zohar: What is the typical philosophical response to this?

And if you can think of one, how are you sure that there isn't any problem with it?

In short, how do you rule out all the incompatibilities of X not being the case when you don't even know what they are?

The Fool: Who is The "you", you are speak of, for if what you say is true you would not know what you're talking about, even now, and forth with.

Eitan_Zohar: I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title.

The Fool: Yes, you want many things, including free philosophy, you shameless beggar. But one cannot get wise, by simply begging questions. It does not follow from the title. So it is not, "hence wise", nor wise, in fact, quite foolish even.

<(89)

Eitan_Zohar: I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.

The Fool: From your own accord, which you strangle yourself with, circularly, and around again, it is ever more tightly, and breathtaking impossible, for you to know that, If and only if, what you say is true. But the word, I heard, is that he came to himself, like hopefully you will to yourself; for you and your own knowledge must start from yourself, and work its way out, thereby. Or at least, that is what a weird man once told me, take it for what it's worth. Perhaps nothing, perhaps everything, who knows such things. Not clown bears anyways.

<(89)

For, it is convenient for such caricatures, that they cannot understand my poor English, the next time, and time before.

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 8:49:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 6:21:28 PM, Poetaster wrote:
We can assert phenomenological certainty in some things (that is, we can describe how things look to us). I would suggest that this isn't a lower order of description, because the way a thing looks is the way its appearance actually, undoubtedly is. This might be commonly overlooked.

Importantly, there are some things which are nothing but appearance, with that being the extent of their reality. Subjectivity and the subjective self (the self-presenting self) are examples of such things; Descartes called it "the ego", but it's the same notion. He then found a state of the ego which he could not, even in principle, doubt the reality of: the fact that he was doubting.

His own method of skepticism stabilized itself on the fulcrum of a real subjective state. He then drew some less clear ontological conclusions.

But the self-appearing "ego" cannot suppose its own appearance to itself a deceit, because that very appearance is its reality. It is not the representation of a thing; it is a presentation of the thing itself.

Ah, this is exactly what I was looking for. I knew that certainty regarding sensations was self-evident, but I didn't know how to follow up on that.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 8:52:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 6:01:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 5:59:47 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:43:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 2:57:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title. I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.

All philosophy is speculation, and most "real philosophers" would deem it ultimately aimless.

Not so: http://philpapers.org...

How does this survey refute my assertion?

Most philosophers accept non-skeptical realism, a priori knowledge, externalism, moral realism, etc.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 10:21:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 8:52:47 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 6:01:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 5:59:47 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:43:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 2:57:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title. I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.

All philosophy is speculation, and most "real philosophers" would deem it ultimately aimless.

Not so: http://philpapers.org...

How does this survey refute my assertion?

Most philosophers accept non-skeptical realism, a priori knowledge, externalism, moral realism, etc.

I can't comment on significance of the rest of your list, but on a priori knowledge, that was the topic of that last thread you made, yes? A priori knowledge is valid only if you accept logic to be valid, and I do believe that Cody made it a point to state that there's no reason to accept logic as "true". Thus, logic is speculation.

If logic is speculation, then any logical assertions would also be speculation (to include my statement here, and to include your OP and the rest of this thread). As most if not all of philosophy (including poetaster's Descartes musings, which do not go into what doubt is, and why doubt would be indicative of anything) do not make solid assertions on what is, would not all of philosophy be speculation of a type that has no direction, because it would not even know what direction is?

Wouldn't any solid assertions like the type you're seeking be deemed a religion, and no longer philosophy? I don't know, I'm obviously speculating aimlessly here.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 10:40:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 10:21:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 8:52:47 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 6:01:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 5:59:47 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:43:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 2:57:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title. I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.

All philosophy is speculation, and most "real philosophers" would deem it ultimately aimless.

Not so: http://philpapers.org...

How does this survey refute my assertion?

Most philosophers accept non-skeptical realism, a priori knowledge, externalism, moral realism, etc.

I can't comment on significance of the rest of your list, but on a priori knowledge, that was the topic of that last thread you made, yes? A priori knowledge is valid only if you accept logic to be valid, and I do believe that Cody made it a point to state that there's no reason to accept logic as "true". Thus, logic is speculation.

If logic is speculation, then any logical assertions would also be speculation (to include my statement here, and to include your OP and the rest of this thread). As most if not all of philosophy (including poetaster's Descartes musings, which do not go into what doubt is, and why doubt would be indicative of anything) do not make solid assertions on what is, would not all of philosophy be speculation of a type that has no direction, because it would not even know what direction is?

Wouldn't any solid assertions like the type you're seeking be deemed a religion, and no longer philosophy? I don't know, I'm obviously speculating aimlessly here.

The entire thing was a response to your claim that most philosophers would dismiss me. It's the most fruitless thing possible to argue with you. You can't ever ever ever ever lose an argument. Dude, do you have internet Asperger's or something? Drop it. I'm not interested. Do you do this with your parents or friends?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 10:57:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 10:40:10 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 10:21:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 8:52:47 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 6:01:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 5:59:47 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:43:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 2:57:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title. I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.

All philosophy is speculation, and most "real philosophers" would deem it ultimately aimless.

Not so: http://philpapers.org...

How does this survey refute my assertion?

Most philosophers accept non-skeptical realism, a priori knowledge, externalism, moral realism, etc.

I can't comment on significance of the rest of your list, but on a priori knowledge, that was the topic of that last thread you made, yes? A priori knowledge is valid only if you accept logic to be valid, and I do believe that Cody made it a point to state that there's no reason to accept logic as "true". Thus, logic is speculation.

If logic is speculation, then any logical assertions would also be speculation (to include my statement here, and to include your OP and the rest of this thread). As most if not all of philosophy (including poetaster's Descartes musings, which do not go into what doubt is, and why doubt would be indicative of anything) do not make solid assertions on what is, would not all of philosophy be speculation of a type that has no direction, because it would not even know what direction is?

Wouldn't any solid assertions like the type you're seeking be deemed a religion, and no longer philosophy? I don't know, I'm obviously speculating aimlessly here.

The entire thing was a response to your claim that most philosophers would dismiss me.

I never made this claim.

It's the most fruitless thing possible to argue with you. You can't ever ever ever ever lose an argument. Dude, do you have internet Asperger's or something? Drop it. I'm not interested. Do you do this with your parents or friends?

You are neither my parents nor my friend.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 11:01:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 10:57:58 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 10:40:10 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

The entire thing was a response to your claim that most philosophers would dismiss me.

I never made this claim.

I must say though, this childish ego-centrism displayed here is unfortunately not unique to you. Sometimes, it's not about you, and sometimes, people are not out to do you in or whatever is going on in your head.

If you can somehow derive that I was indeed trying to do you in or whatever here, please point it out to me, and I will rescind any insinuations to that effect...but I don't think I did anything remotely close to what you are implying.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 11:06:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 4:43:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 2:57:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title. I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.

All philosophy is speculation, and most "real philosophers" would deem it ultimately aimless.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 11:10:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 11:06:31 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:43:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 2:57:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title. I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.

All philosophy is speculation, and most "real philosophers" would deem it ultimately aimless.

lol, how is this "dismissing you"?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 11:12:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 11:10:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 11:06:31 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:43:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 2:57:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title. I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.

All philosophy is speculation, and most "real philosophers" would deem it ultimately aimless.

lol, how is this "dismissing you"?

Please stop posting on my threads. If you can't see it, I don't want to have to point it out.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2013 11:13:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 11:12:06 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 11:10:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 11:06:31 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:43:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 10/17/2013 2:57:07 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I want actual philosophical substance for this question, not aimless speculation; hence the title. I know that Descartes contemplated this, but I'm not sure what solution he came to.

All philosophy is speculation, and most "real philosophers" would deem it ultimately aimless.

lol, how is this "dismissing you"?

Please stop posting on my threads. If you can't see it, I don't want to have to point it out.

You are not your argument, bro.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 12:09:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/17/2013 7:03:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:00:51 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It is interesting how, following a near-death experience, one finds he has very little to say about his encounter with death, but a great deal to say and recall about his life.

The Fool: Which "one" are you talking about? I have had a quite a few encounters with death, And that's all I talk about, to myself, and even the Grim Reaper to himself. You dainty little devil you.
<(89)

That is the other possibility. This was also the response of Wittgenstein and Derrida.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 1:01:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 12:09:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/17/2013 7:03:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:00:51 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It is interesting how, following a near-death experience, one finds he has very little to say about his encounter with death, but a great deal to say and recall about his life.

The Fool: Which "one" are you talking about? I have had a quite a few encounters with death, And that's all I talk about, to myself, and even the Grim Reaper to himself. You dainty little devil you.
<(89)

That is the other possibility. This was also the response of Wittgenstein and Derrida.

And yet, I'm still waiting for a real response on what it means. "Mysterious poetic metaphors" don't do much to facilitate conversation. Just look at your siggy.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 3:30:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 1:01:00 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/18/2013 12:09:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/17/2013 7:03:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:00:51 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It is interesting how, following a near-death experience, one finds he has very little to say about his encounter with death, but a great deal to say and recall about his life.

The Fool: Which "one" are you talking about? I have had a quite a few encounters with death, And that's all I talk about, to myself, and even the Grim Reaper to himself. You dainty little devil you.
<(89)

That is the other possibility. This was also the response of Wittgenstein and Derrida.

And yet, I'm still waiting for a real response on what it means. "Mysterious poetic metaphors" don't do much to facilitate conversation. Just look at your siggy.

You don't like my prose, either. You wouldn't have called it Kantspeak if you did. What you want is not a "real" response, but one which is tailored to your comfort and ease. For me, literary forms and playing with language are preferred and comfortable.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 4:14:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 3:30:08 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/18/2013 1:01:00 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 10/18/2013 12:09:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/17/2013 7:03:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/17/2013 4:00:51 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It is interesting how, following a near-death experience, one finds he has very little to say about his encounter with death, but a great deal to say and recall about his life.

The Fool: Which "one" are you talking about? I have had a quite a few encounters with death, And that's all I talk about, to myself, and even the Grim Reaper to himself. You dainty little devil you.
<(89)

That is the other possibility. This was also the response of Wittgenstein and Derrida.

And yet, I'm still waiting for a real response on what it means. "Mysterious poetic metaphors" don't do much to facilitate conversation. Just look at your siggy.

You don't like my prose, either. You wouldn't have called it Kantspeak if you did. What you want is not a "real" response, but one which is tailored to your comfort and ease. For me, literary forms and playing with language are preferred and comfortable.

I often do like your prose, but not always. Still I'm not going to gain much out of it if I can't wrest some meaning from it.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 7:58:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
holycrapIjustthoughtoftheperfectsolutiontothis.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."