|existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine|
|( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board|
Posted by Joe on Friday, December 13, 2002 at 00:18:46 :
In Reply to: Are you trying argue that grammar is somehow a measure of a man? posted by Spratley on Thursday, December 12, 2002 at 15:25:55 :
You obviously don't believe that the opposite of your conception of truth is also truth or you would immediately adopt any caustic rebuttal of your post that I offer. Your whole post contradicts itself, Spratley, and these pathetic attempts to sound open-minded by not "bottling" the truth, blah, blah, blah only reflects a failure to think. When one doesn't think, one can truly believe opposites are all truth and not be bottled at all. There is no thought on this site, just vague appeals to meaningless abstractions, followed by whiny complaints when someone actually wants to know what the poster is trying to say. Grammar is not the measure of a man, but it is an excellent indicator of the quality of thought behind the words being spoken. Poor thinkers have always retreated behind ill-phrased, unclear statements, hoping their readers will do their thinking for them.
And no, the fact that I understand something doesn't cause me to think it's trite. If I didn't understand extremely insightful statements, I wouldn't know them to be insightful. I hear trite things all the time, but when they are presented as if they are deep, my reaction is as I've expressed it here. You can whine and console youself that my opinion of many of the posts here must be pyschologically based if you wish, but you are wrong. I have read many profound things, many thought-provoking things, and your posts and most of the posts here are rambling impressions passing as expanded insight.
P.S. I'm quite happy, and I expect you to immediately agree. Otherwise, you are bottling your conception of the truth about my state of mind.
: : "your" is possessive.
: : Actually, Spratley, you have me all wrong. I've come to find you to be a wierdly naive guy, but since you are so intent, I'll be frank with you. First, you can take me exactly at my word. I genuinely believe philosophical discussions in general and those at this site in particular are 1) trite, and 2) useless. I have no problem with people who simply can't enunciate sophisticated arguments, but I have a real problem with trite things said under the guise of insight. In fact, I find slightly educated people impressed by "ideas" and "concepts" to be the biggest threat to the modern world. Invariably their weak intellects, armed with a few philosophical quotes and an adamant conviction that they see farther than those who do not waste their times with such things, cause them to embrace obnoxious ideologies and generally whine and cry about the ignorance of the masses - a generalization I know, but one that is quite accurate.
: Tell me, if your mind comes up with this opinion, and your mind is determining if it IS accurate or not. . . how do you know your mind is not mistaken, or worse yet lying to you on either or both account? Opinions are fine, even better when they can be discussed between people. But as soon as that opinion usurps that word "IS" and claims to have some monopoly on truth, it reveals a serious flaw.
: : The idea that we all possess unique experiences and therefore cannot rely entirely on general principles to guide our lives is rather obvious. Nobody relies entirely on general principles. That is what makes them general. You rely on your mind's ability to think to determine the extent to which a general principle is useful and the extent to which it is not. Most people in Peoria have known and never questioned that in their lives. Only a philosopher would stumble upon such a point indirectly and then conclude that they had discovered a conceptual treasure. You want to understand me? Try to understand what would cause a presumably intelligent person to be fascinated by this insight. Idly speculating about the meaning and nature of the universe is like dissecting an electric, neon advertising sign. The more you analyze the circuitry and wires in the sign, the further you are from being able to actually read the sign. My advice, albeit snide, is that this whole enterprise is worse than a waste of time. It encourages a mindest that makes enjoyment of life much more difficult.
: : Joe
: I see a theme in you. Someone states something that you understand. Because you understand it you declare that it is obvious. And because its obvious, the statement of it is pointless and somehow indicative of inferior thoughtmanship.
: I offer this --how come so many people that understand obvious ideas don't employ that obvious idea to the obvious benefit of that idea? Christians, Muslims, Government-types. Dogmatists all --they latch onto a principle, an idea, and they give it weight across the entire board. Now, if it is obvious that one should not live according to a general principle. . . what's up with all the application of general principles?
: Here's a difference I see in you and me. What you said in your second paragraph does have some truth in it. I understand the truth of your words, "Idly speculating about the meaning and nature of the universe is like dissecting an electric, neon advertising sign. The more you analyze the circuitry and wires in the sign, the further you are from being able to actually read the sign." But where you and I differ is that I understand the truth of the opposite --that going micro rather than macro can lead to rewarding insights with real benefits for the everyday life. You have found a truth and have applied it across the board. . . almost like a genral principle oddly enough. You have found something you feel the truth of and decided that the opposite cannot be truth therefore. I am not hung up on such rules. I try to recognize and appreciate truth wherever I find it. But you keep it in a bottle, apparently.
: : PS I don't hurt at all. I'm happy, wealthy and married to a hot babe. I'm just trying to spread my secret to happiness.
: For a happy person you sure haven't presented a very happy face here. Not sure I can beleive that a person is happy when everything they've contributed here is sour, disrespectful and proscriptive (that is --you should do this, you shouldn't do that.) The happiest people I've ever known, remarkably enough, never seem to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do.
: And remarkably enough, the two symbols of happiness you share here --wealth and the attachment to a physically attractive person-- also happen to be two things that are commonly identified as compensation devices that rarely lead a person to the happiness they seek. All over the world peope lare chasing wealth because they think its what they want. And when thy get it they realize how inadequate it is.
: I won't claim to think that you don't have happy moments. I am not trying to color you as a miserable, depressed person 24/7. I am just hypothesizing that there is something in you that is not satisfied withthe things you have, not satisfied with yourself as a person, probably very angry with yourself, and so you take it out on other people. But we'll never know since I can't et you into the psychiatrist's couch. So we'll hav to leave it at this --as long as you persist in treating people like they are foolish, misguided, mental inferiors, you're never going to get me to beleive that you are without deep psychological pain.
: For the simple fact that you could tell us about your path to happiness and about how you think that certain philosophical activities lead away from happiness according to that path, without telling people that what they do is ridiculous and worthless and that they are mental midgets. Its not in the things you say that I see the pain. It is in how you say them. A person sharing his happiness with others could easily do it in a way that increases other's happiness. But you chose to do it differently. It is in that choice that I see the pain.
Post a Followup