Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Real life experience

kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 10:52:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I see alot of folks post here speaking in purely intellectual terms, which is not wrong, but has no weight in the real world. You can read all the books you liike, but experience trumps what your pseudo enviornment produces

your thoughts?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 11:26:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is both wrong and right. If you rely solely on the conceptual and theoretical then you are missing something in life. But if you can find a balance, which I think many here have, then there is no problem.

Just because people here are well read does not mean that they suffer from a social deficiency as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 11:37:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 10:52:08 AM, kelly224 wrote:
I see alot of folks post here speaking in purely intellectual terms, which is not wrong, but has no weight in the real world. You can read all the books you liike, but experience trumps what your pseudo enviornment produces

your thoughts?

What rational merit/advantage is there for directly experiencing something when considering the truth of important philosophical/political/etc. issues? In fact, it's much more often the case that your own personal experiences will lead to you being heavily biased. I assume you treasure impartiality in an intellectual discussion?
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 11:39:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 11:26:58 AM, JBlake wrote:
This is both wrong and right. If you rely solely on the conceptual and theoretical then you are missing something in life. But if you can find a balance, which I think many here have, then there is no problem.

Just because people here are well read does not mean that they suffer from a social deficiency as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.

There is nothing wrong with being well read, I am well read, but someone who has no REAL experience in the world can't give me advice. It's easy to argue ideologies.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 11:40:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 11:37:04 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 12/8/2009 10:52:08 AM, kelly224 wrote:
I see alot of folks post here speaking in purely intellectual terms, which is not wrong, but has no weight in the real world. You can read all the books you liike, but experience trumps what your pseudo enviornment produces

your thoughts?

What rational merit/advantage is there for directly experiencing something when considering the truth of important philosophical/political/etc. issues? In fact, it's much more often the case that your own personal experiences will lead to you being heavily biased. I assume you treasure impartiality in an intellectual discussion?

I can be impartial, in fact I think you have to be speaking from an intellectual point of view. What merit is it to argue from a totally intellectual stance, as I see a few posters here do?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 1:58:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 11:40:39 AM, kelly224 wrote:
I can be impartial, in fact I think you have to be speaking from an intellectual point of view. What merit is it to argue from a totally intellectual stance, as I see a few posters here do?

What you refer to as "real life experience" is basically variables. Variables introduced in every aspect of discussion. These are accounted for depending on what we're discussing. If we are arguing the existence of God, there is no need for the guy with the "street smarts". He can't contribute practicality to a metaphysical discussion.

If you examine the debates on abortion, stem cell research, etc. You will see that most people bring up practicality in their discussions.

I think the best thing for you to do is point out where you think that "real life experience" would make a big difference in a discussion that was purely intellectual.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 2:05:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm intelligent, sure, but I'm in no way an intellectual. To be honest, I don't even understand like half the stuff that is discussed here.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 2:11:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 2:05:46 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm intelligent, sure, but I'm in no way an intellectual. To be honest, I don't even understand like half the stuff that is discussed here.

Neither do I. The trick is to just pretend that you do XD
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 6:17:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 2:11:26 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 12/8/2009 2:05:46 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm intelligent, sure, but I'm in no way an intellectual. To be honest, I don't even understand like half the stuff that is discussed here.

Neither do I. The trick is to just pretend that you do XD

The pretenders are easy to spot ;D

That said, kelly, I agree with you to an extent. Experience is definitely a great teacher when it comes to certain things, but as Kleptin said, it depends on the subject. I had a really, uh, interesting up-bringing so I'm pretty sure that my intelligence is well-rounded.
President of DDO
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 8:59:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 10:52:08 AM, kelly224 wrote:
I see alot of folks post here speaking in purely intellectual terms, which is not wrong, but has no weight in the real world. You can read all the books you liike, but experience trumps what your pseudo enviornment produces

your thoughts?

Those "purely intellectual terms" are a way of expressing the world you experience. Your experience may be an indication of things that happen in the "real world," but philosophy is the attempt to understand why those things occur. In a very real sense, the events and actors of your "real world" are the direct result of 3000 years of philosphical inquiry. Seas of ink and acres of paper were spent to win you the basic rights you take for granted as a human; the principles that allow us to buy stocks, take out loans, own our own homes, defend ourselves when attacked, speak our minds without fear of our rulers, choose our own vocations, wives and rulers, and many other areas of practical existence were threshed out by men who stayed up late at night pondering in intellectual terms the problems of practical life.

My thoughts? MY thoughts are more sound for having not be formed in a vacuum! I have had the experience of not 22 years, but 2200 years to draw on; in books, the thoughts of humanity as we've grown is open to me. I can examine the branches of human thought; test its links; follow its paths. In many cases, I can see the conclusions that people came to from those philosophies directly expressed in human history; and the consequences are clearly spelled out there as well.

Until you know what you are missing, do not reject intellectual discussion...
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 1:09:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 8:59:49 PM, Chrysippus wrote:

Until you know what you are missing, do not reject intellectual discussion...

Yes, but can you hail a cab on a busy day? It's about survival!

>.>
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 7:58:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 1:58:06 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 12/8/2009 11:40:39 AM, kelly224 wrote:
I can be impartial, in fact I think you have to be speaking from an intellectual point of view. What merit is it to argue from a totally intellectual stance, as I see a few posters here do?

What you refer to as "real life experience" is basically variables. Variables introduced in every aspect of discussion. These are accounted for depending on what we're discussing. If we are arguing the existence of God, there is no need for the guy with the "street smarts". He can't contribute practicality to a metaphysical discussion.

If you examine the debates on abortion, stem cell research, etc. You will see that most people bring up practicality in their discussions.

I think the best thing for you to do is point out where you think that "real life experience" would make a big difference in a discussion that was purely intellectual.

I know that real life experiences can't solve everything, but wisdom rarely comes from intellectuals, just speculation, and rhetoric. Regardless of who the ideas come from there will always be a cause to disagree since it comes from a human being, and not omniscience. The guy with the street smarts has every reason to argue the existence of God, than the theologian.
If you are a believer of God, than you are aware that he does not work in the intellectual parts of your brain, thus why alot of intellectuals argue for his non existence.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 8:00:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 2:05:46 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm intelligent, sure, but I'm in no way an intellectual. To be honest, I don't even understand like half the stuff that is discussed here.

Don't be ashamed, because half the people posting here don't either. They gather facts from someone else, and take it as doctrine. If you want to argue a case, you will always find info that will make your case fit it's argument. We all think we are right, and you will notice that the ones who have just a smidgen of knowledge get ofeended the easiest.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 8:03:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 6:17:56 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 12/8/2009 2:11:26 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 12/8/2009 2:05:46 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I'm intelligent, sure, but I'm in no way an intellectual. To be honest, I don't even understand like half the stuff that is discussed here.

Neither do I. The trick is to just pretend that you do XD

The pretenders are easy to spot ;D

That said, kelly, I agree with you to an extent. Experience is definitely a great teacher when it comes to certain things, but as Kleptin said, it depends on the subject. I had a really, uh, interesting up-bringing so I'm pretty sure that my intelligence is well-rounded.

I think that my intelligence is well rounded as well. I had a complicated upbringing where real life experience often trumped books. At any rate, I had a zest for learning, so I have become an avid researcher of truth. School systems set a curriculum that they want you to follow, even though half the skills you learn there have NO weight in the real world. They don't teach you how to have self respect, and to encourage your natural curiosity.
Sylux
Posts: 290
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 8:05:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Speaking intelligently around bugs and streeties is fun.
"Can you see? Do you know?
The string behind you, it's shiny and pretty.
Where is my string.
Give me because I don't know.
Give me your string.
Give me everything."
-grasshoppa
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 8:08:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/8/2009 8:59:49 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 12/8/2009 10:52:08 AM, kelly224 wrote:
I see alot of folks post here speaking in purely intellectual terms, which is not wrong, but has no weight in the real world. You can read all the books you liike, but experience trumps what your pseudo enviornment produces

your thoughts?

Those "purely intellectual terms" are a way of expressing the world you experience. Your experience may be an indication of things that happen in the "real world," but philosophy is the attempt to understand why those things occur. In a very real sense, the events and actors of your "real world" are the direct result of 3000 years of philosphical inquiry. Seas of ink and acres of paper were spent to win you the basic rights you take for granted as a human; the principles that allow us to buy stocks, take out loans, own our own homes, defend ourselves when attacked, speak our minds without fear of our rulers, choose our own vocations, wives and rulers, and many other areas of practical existence were threshed out by men who stayed up late at night pondering in intellectual terms the problems of practical life.
I don't argue the valdity of this, but let's be honest, those very same men who stood up late nights pondering in some instances did so as a menas to control the thinking of the masses.If not so, than we would not be in the certain state of affairs we are right now. There are pros and cons for everything.

My thoughts? MY thoughts are more sound for having not be formed in a vacuum! I have had the experience of not 22 years, but 2200 years to draw on; in books, the thoughts of humanity as we've grown is open to me. I can examine the branches of human thought; test its links; follow its paths. In many cases, I can see the conclusions that people came to from those philosophies directly expressed in human history; and the consequences are clearly spelled out there as well.

Well said!


Until you know what you are missing, do not reject intellectual discussion...

I love intellectual discussion, it actually activates something amazing in me, I don't appreciate people who have an ounce of knowledge bombarding me with excessive jargon
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 8:26:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The guy with the street smarts has every reason to argue the existence of God, than the theologian.
No wonder you don't like intellectuals. j/k
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 8:41:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 8:26:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The guy with the street smarts has every reason to argue the existence of God, than the theologian.
No wonder you don't like intellectuals. j/k

????

A degree does not make you the sole authority to speak on topics.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 8:56:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 7:58:19 AM, kelly224 wrote:
If you are a believer of God, than you are aware that he does not work in the intellectual parts of your brain, thus why alot of intellectuals argue for his non existence.

I don't get this. I think that the reason why a lot of intellectuals argue for God's nonexistence is because there is no reason to believe that He exists. What do you mean by "he does not work in the intellectual parts of your brain?"
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 9:00:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 8:41:00 AM, kelly224 wrote:
A degree does not make you the sole authority to speak on topics.

I think that one thing that makes logic so beautiful is that anyone who presents a logical argument has exactly the same validity as anyone else. Anyone can be logical, anyone can be a philosopher. There are no prerequisites. Sure, it helps to understand certain things first, and to know a lot about the history of philosophy, but it is still possible to philosophize with only very little prior knowledge of philosophy.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 1:45:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 8:56:49 AM, MTGandP wrote:
At 12/9/2009 7:58:19 AM, kelly224 wrote:
If you are a believer of God, than you are aware that he does not work in the intellectual parts of your brain, thus why alot of intellectuals argue for his non existence.

I don't get this. I think that the reason why a lot of intellectuals argue for God's nonexistence is because there is no reason to believe that He exists. What do you mean by "he does not work in the intellectual parts of your brain?"

You read the words right.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 1:47:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 9:00:12 AM, MTGandP wrote:
At 12/9/2009 8:41:00 AM, kelly224 wrote:
A degree does not make you the sole authority to speak on topics.

I think that one thing that makes logic so beautiful is that anyone who presents a logical argument has exactly the same validity as anyone else. Anyone can be logical, anyone can be a philosopher. There are no prerequisites. Sure, it helps to understand certain things first, and to know a lot about the history of philosophy, but it is still possible to philosophize with only very little prior knowledge of philosophy.

I agree, most people can and often do offer their personal philosophies on everything under the sun, regadless if it offers truth.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 4:56:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 8:41:00 AM, kelly224 wrote:
At 12/9/2009 8:26:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The guy with the street smarts has every reason to argue the existence of God, than the theologian.
No wonder you don't like intellectuals. j/k

????

A degree does not make you the sole authority to speak on topics.

What the hell does a degree have to do with anything? Most DDOians are students.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 4:56:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
In case you didn't notice I was taking a crack at your grammar.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 5:03:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 8:08:37 AM, kelly224 wrote:
I don't argue the valdity of this, but let's be honest, those very same men who stood up late nights pondering in some instances did so as a menas to control the thinking of the masses.If not so, than we would not be in the certain state of affairs we are right now. There are pros and cons for everything.

"Don't think it's EEvILE"
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2009 5:42:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 7:58:19 AM, kelly224 wrote:
I know that real life experiences can't solve everything, but wisdom rarely comes from intellectuals, just speculation, and rhetoric. Regardless of who the ideas come from there will always be a cause to disagree since it comes from a human being, and not omniscience. The guy with the street smarts has every reason to argue the existence of God, than the theologian.

Yes, he does. But the problem is that you're stuck under the assumption that every belief and every argument is valid. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but that does not guarantee that the opinion is logical. Gues who tends to make the better arguments between an intellectual and someone with only "street smarts"?

Wisdom would come from those with both an intellectual and practical background. If a person is going to attempt arguing his point on this forum, what's wrong with having a mob of intellectuals break him down? If his intellectual half can't withstand the pressure, it doesn't matter how experienced he is. Experience doesn't make an illogical statement magically logical.

If you are a believer of God, than you are aware that he does not work in the intellectual parts of your brain, thus why alot of intellectuals argue for his non existence.

I agree. But here's another reason, why do a lot of intellectuals try to reason the existence of God through similar logical processes? Why don't they just admit that God cannot be logically proven or disproven and admit that their only criterion for their belief is faith?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2009 7:07:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/10/2009 5:42:26 AM, Kleptin wrote:

Yes, he does. But the problem is that you're stuck under the assumption that every belief and every argument is valid. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but that does not guarantee that the opinion is logical.

I know this is a bit off topic, but in another thread you seemed to suggest something a bit different.

Namely that people who believe in the Falun Gong religion ought be persecuted, or as qualified: thrown in jail, for nothing other than the fact that they believe in it, being that such beliefs have been, in people generally, associated with wrongdoing.

Do you really believe people are "entitled" to their beliefs, and if you do how do you reconcile that with your idea that people ought to be persecuted/punished for no more than their holding a belief.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2009 11:50:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 4:56:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
In case you didn't notice I was taking a crack at your grammar.

In case you didnt notice, I can care less, you understood exactly what I said without using a large word to describe it.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2009 11:52:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/9/2009 5:03:13 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/9/2009 8:08:37 AM, kelly224 wrote:
I don't argue the valdity of this, but let's be honest, those very same men who stood up late nights pondering in some instances did so as a menas to control the thinking of the masses.If not so, than we would not be in the certain state of affairs we are right now. There are pros and cons for everything.

"Don't think it's EEvILE"

Diabolical,is that better?...Does that tickle your fancy. People who don't understand human nature try to manipulate to get their way, thus showing how out of touch they really are with the majority of others.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2009 11:54:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/10/2009 7:07:14 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/10/2009 5:42:26 AM, Kleptin wrote:

Yes, he does. But the problem is that you're stuck under the assumption that every belief and every argument is valid. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but that does not guarantee that the opinion is logical.

I know this is a bit off topic, but in another thread you seemed to suggest something a bit different.

Namely that people who believe in the Falun Gong religion ought be persecuted, or as qualified: thrown in jail, for nothing other than the fact that they believe in it, being that such beliefs have been, in people generally, associated with wrongdoing.

Do you really believe people are "entitled" to their beliefs, and if you do how do you reconcile that with your idea that people ought to be persecuted/punished for no more than their holding a belief.

Some people only think that they are the only ones entitled to determine their own destinies. He's not wrong for wanting to serve self....lol