Shall I Post My Philosophy Work On Here?

[extralegs2020]

EL and irina, I don't follow this topic closely, but a word of advice - if you want your philosophical writings to be taken seriously you need to use phrase "...that which..." more often.

I don’t get it.

I don't get it either.
That makes two of us.

[extralegs2020]

EL and irina, I don't follow this topic closely, but a word of advice - if you want your philosophical writings to be taken seriously you need to use phrase "...that which..." more often.

I don't get it.

[extralegs2020]

Anselm: "....that which nothing greater can be thought"

I know exactly where that comes from.
That is the Ontological argument for the existence of God. A very ingenious and clever argument. It consists entirely of analytical a priori statements.
But, like all arguments, it can be shot down with holes.

[Mad Serb]

Joke - that which was not meant to be taken seriously.

[evs]

If ppl don’t get your jokes..... you draw the conclusion.

[Mad Serb]

You may not like my conclusion

[extralegs2020]

Why don't you exit a plane at 10,000 feet without a parachute and jump to a conclusion?

[Mad Serb]

Why don't you exit a plane at 10,000 feet without a parachute and jump to a conclusion?

Because there is no god to save me. I'll leave it to you to test your faith

[extralegs2020]

If ppl don’t get your jokes..... you draw the conclusion.

He hasn't got any jokes.

[soon]

your cyberpunk dystopia name is just your actual name because the corporations have already won.

- random internet joke

https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/19/210 ... york-times

[soon]

I came out of commenting retirement to simply say "thank you" to both The Verge and The NY Times.

- random comment

[soon]

it was a question of scholarship.

"‘How are synthetic judgments a priori POSSIBLE?’ Kant asks himself—and what is really his answer? ‘BY MEANS OF A MEANS (faculty)’—but unfortunately not in five words, but so circumstantially, imposingly, and with such display of German profundity and verbal flourishes, that one altogether loses sight of the comical niaiserie allemande involved in such an answer."

- nietzsche

[soon]

what if one believed the opposite of the truth? would that make me some sort of gnostic like hermann hesse's demian?

But such replies belong to the realm of comedy, and it is high time to replace the Kantian question, “How are synthetic judgments a PRIORI possible?” by another question, “Why is belief in such judgments necessary?” — in effect, it is high time that we should understand that such judgments must be believed to be true, for the sake of the preservation of creatures like ourselves; though they still might naturally be false judgments! Or, more plainly spoken, and roughly and readily — synthetic judgments a priori should not “be possible” at all; we have no right to them; in our mouths they are nothing but false judgments. Only, of course, the belief in their truth is necessary, as plausible belief and ocular evidence belonging to the perspective view of life.

- nietzsche

[Blurt]

He said niaiserie allemande.

Where's Mel when you need him?

He has more to say about a priori analytical statements than does the womanizing Musulman Plagiarist.

By the way, the monk Gaunilo--also a believer--shot down the ontological proof for the existence of God that Anselm had tried to formulate in his Proslogion. Gaunilo did so by referring to an island "than which none greater can be conceived." Gaunilo claimed that this island than which none greater can be conceived does not necessarily exist in fact, especially given that all the islands ever discovered (and discoverable) empirically can be thought of as being smaller than any such greatest conceivable island. (Centuries later, Kant himself would postulate that existence is not a predicate, thereby mortally wounding the Ontological Argument for the existence of God; in effect, believing that God exists, just because, by definition he must, is certainly no proof that he actually does in reality.) Gaunilo was of the opinion that the existence of God was a matter of faith and therefore not amenable to rational scrutiny.

What isn't amenable to rational scrutiny ought best be left to those for whom reason is not a defining trait.

[extralegs2020]

NEVER forget who taught you this: MOI!
I am the Great Teacher. I am the Master here. You are merely my humble students.
So go do your home-work!

[Blurt]

^^^ One for whom reason is not a defining trait.

[extralegs2020]

The person on here has posted a critique of the Ontological argument.
She did so before even explaining what the argument was that she was critiquing. That means it went right above everyone's heads. It's called getting too far ahead of the game, too soon.

[Blurt]

Not very bright, are you, Mister El?

I did explain it above. But let me put in terms a kindergarten tot would understand, just so you can follow.

Ontological Argument:

P1: God, by definition, is a being such that we can imagine no greater being.
P2: It's a greater thing to exist than to not exist (so sayeth Saint Anselm).
____________________________
C: Therefore God must necessarily exist.

Pure twatfulness.

[soon]

i had no idea the koreans are so big into hermann hesse. apparently this song is about him.

[soon]

[extralegs2020]

i had no idea the koreans are so big into hermann hesse. apparently this song is about him.

Just don't make a Korea out of it.

[soon]

“There are two kinds of people: those who read Demian, and those who don’t.”

- lee dong-jin

[Blurt]

There's a third kind: those who've read the Cliff Notes version so they can claim they've read Demian when, in fact, they haven't.

Fallacy of the False Dichotomy laid bare.

I once wrote a 50-page philosophy paper (graded, for which I got an A+) exploring the relationship between the central tenets of Mahayana Buddhism regarding the nature of the soul or personality and the Heraclitean concept of "flux."

Sir Yawn? Any thoughts on the matter?

[Mad Serb]

"One eithers reads Demian or not" is not false dichotomy (ignoring those who read every fifth word, then it's debatable whether they read it or not).. These two possibilities are mutually exclusive and cover all possibilities.

False dichotomy would be "one reads either Tolstoy or Marx".

[Blurt]

I beg to differ.

There's an elided word in Lee Dong-Jin's claim, that word being "only." As in, "there are 'only' two kinds of people..."

Any such phrasal construction meant to highlight the high value of a subject (or of an object) is meant to be reduced to two groups: those who understand its value and those who don't. It ignores those who pretend to understand its value but really don't.

[extralegs2020]

No thoughts. I admit to being out of my depth here.
I know not the Heraclitean concept of flux; nor do I know what relevance it has to my life.
Mahayana is Great Raft.
But I have heard that studies done about gauging the fear of death show that Buddhist monks and such types have the greatest amount of fear of it. That's because they believe in annihilation. They think that their souls will be brought to annihilation; I.E. that they will cease to exist.
Poor Kaffirs.
I have no fear of my own death; but, to be clear, there is no true bravery on my part.
No: It is not my bravery that makes me fearless. It is knowledge.
Knowing where I am going and knowing what will happen to me, the mystery of the Unknown is gone! And with it goes the terror.
But I was not always so. Once I had fear.
Not that I was about to volunteer for the next suicide mission.

[Blurt]

...I was about to volunteer for the next suicide mission.

What made you change your mind?

[Mad Serb]

I beg to differ.

There's an elided word in Lee Dong-Jin's claim, that word being "only." As in, "there are 'only' two kinds of people..."

Any such phrasal construction meant to highlight the high value of a subject (or of an object) is meant to be reduced to two groups: those who understand its value and those who don't. It ignores those who pretend to understand its value but really don't.

It does not ignore them. They clearly fall into those who do not understand. As people who do not pretend but rather honestly but erroneously think they do understand. They also fall into "Not understand" group.
The exception could be hard to define "somewhat understand" individuals, but if you pick a line everyone is either in or out.

P.S. Learned new word today, thanks.

[Blurt]

Damn.

Bested by a Serb.

Wouldn't be the first time.

[Mad Serb]

...I was about to volunteer for the next suicide mission.

What made you change your mind?

I guess just boasting about daily BJ from real woman beats hypothetical 72 daily BJs from hypothetical virgins in hypothetical paradise.