Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

The Real and Unreal

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 6:27:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
All too often, we see ourselves as being objective and they who disagree with us as being subjective. We trust our faculties to the extent that they preclude any discrepancies, and we are skeptical of all who disagree. In seeing ourselves as being objective and less prone to faulty judgements, we see ourselves as aligned or apart of the real, or actual, world. However, others whom we find disagreeable, we see as being deluded or hypocritical; in both instances, we see them as not corresponding with reality.

It would be one thing if two types of people actually existed: those of soundness and integrity and those who are either insincere or delusional. Yet, in reality, there is only one type of person; and, he, or she, is both.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 7:17:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 6:41:38 PM, Sargon wrote:
This is the type of banality and truism that gives philosophy a bad name in some circles.

Then, they should be happy I'm not apart of those circles.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 7:34:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 7:17:52 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/27/2014 6:41:38 PM, Sargon wrote:
This is the type of banality and truism that gives philosophy a bad name in some circles.

Then, they should be happy I'm not apart of those circles.

Actually, my original post wasn't broad enough. This OP would is bad even in a philosophical context because it's not even philosophy.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 7:48:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 7:34:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:17:52 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/27/2014 6:41:38 PM, Sargon wrote:
This is the type of banality and truism that gives philosophy a bad name in some circles.

Then, they should be happy I'm not apart of those circles.

Actually, my original post wasn't broad enough. This OP would is bad even in a philosophical context because it's not even philosophy.

Ok.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 7:51:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 7:48:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:34:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:17:52 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/27/2014 6:41:38 PM, Sargon wrote:
This is the type of banality and truism that gives philosophy a bad name in some circles.

Then, they should be happy I'm not apart of those circles.

Actually, my original post wasn't broad enough. This OP would is bad even in a philosophical context because it's not even philosophy.

Ok.

To be brief, you're not doing anything more than using a large quantity of words to explain a very simple concept that was apparent to all of us. For that reason, it's not even a work of philosophy because it doesn't even show, clarify, or solve any issue in philosophy.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 8:00:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 7:51:02 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:48:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:34:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:17:52 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/27/2014 6:41:38 PM, Sargon wrote:
This is the type of banality and truism that gives philosophy a bad name in some circles.

Then, they should be happy I'm not apart of those circles.

Actually, my original post wasn't broad enough. This OP would is bad even in a philosophical context because it's not even philosophy.

Ok.

To be brief, you're not doing anything more than using a large quantity of words to explain a very simple concept that was apparent to all of us. For that reason, it's not even a work of philosophy because it doesn't even show, clarify, or solve any issue in philosophy.

Don't worry. There will be plenty of words left for you.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 10:27:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 7:51:02 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:48:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:34:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:17:52 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/27/2014 6:41:38 PM, Sargon wrote:
This is the type of banality and truism that gives philosophy a bad name in some circles.

Then, they should be happy I'm not apart of those circles.

Actually, my original post wasn't broad enough. This OP would is bad even in a philosophical context because it's not even philosophy.

Ok.

To be brief, you're not doing anything more than using a large quantity of words to explain a very simple concept that was apparent to all of us. For that reason, it's not even a work of philosophy because it doesn't even show, clarify, or solve any issue in philosophy.

I have a question, maybe, you can answer. If the OP is so blatantly obvious, why do people almost always accuse those who disagree with them as being the ones who are out of touch with reality?