Philosophy of Philosophers

[Panjandrum]

I was being faceitious :evil:. At least my 'dark side' has a sense of humour.

 

Racoon, if he were alive today, who do you think would have been the Buddas favourite philosopher?

[Agememnon]

So Racoon, Derrida eh?

 

Have you read much of him?

 

If so what would you suggest?

 

Although I don't think I fully understood what he's about what little I did understand I found very interesting.

[Agememnon]

I haven't read too much of him.

He likes to ask Why? why? why? why?

I do find his psychology to be interesting...

 

The "I" of the self is always in the process of becoming.

Caught in a Dualism. :hihi:

 

Dualism, I've heard of that but I dont know anything about it. What is it?

 

By the way I like your new signature. Very.....simple. No need to be flashy.

[hallenrm]

Juddu Krishnamurthy,

 

Anyone read this philosopher, he is perhaps not as popular as some other philosophers mentioned in this thread, but he is profound.

 

Care to discuss about him Raccoon?:)

[Panjandrum]

Idnt bother with Derrida or any postmodernists. The entier philosophy is self-referential, completely devoid of truth. In fact, one of thier postulates is that truth is entierly relative and therefore meaningless. I agree, as it happens, but its hardly a profound conclusion.

 

As I understand it, Dualism is the theory that the mind (or soul) is of a diffent type of substance to the body/ physical universe. Its the creed favoured by most major religions. Descartes was its most famous advocae, but as Ive already mentioned, he was a hard-core catholic in search of a philosophy that supports catholiscism, so I dont think hes a very reliable source of unbiased thought.

 

Juddu Krishnamurthy,

 

Anyone read this philosopher, he is perhaps not as popular as some other philosophers mentioned in this thread, but he is profound.

 

Im not impressed. Nothing he said has not been said before, and the fact that he lived in luxuary while preaching a kind of watered-down zen buddism makes me think he was little more than a con-man.

[Queso]

Depends on what your opinion of Harm is,

O **** A TIDAL WAVE!

[Agememnon]

And could water fight if it wanted to?

 

Saying water dosen't fight implies it has the ability to.

 

And if that is what you are saying, then I don't agree.

[Queso]

Yeah it can't be snapped,

but you can rip it.

[Tormod]

And could water fight if it wanted to?

 

Saying water dosen't fight implies it has the ability to.

 

This is false logic. Non-A does not imply A.

 

That would mean that if an orange isn't a pig, it has the ability to. :confused:

[Agememnon]

This is false logic. Non-A does not imply A.

 

That would mean that if an orange isn't a pig, it has the ability to.

 

Tomrod you are the false one here, Non-A does imply A. How could there be an NON-A if there is no A.

 

But I wasn't even using that logic. I stated that water does not have the ability to fight, thereby questioning a personification, not logic.

 

Not only that your comparion is also flawed.

Your orange and pig idea does not support your "NON-a does not imply A" falseity. You said that If A(orange) does not equil B(pig), then B(pig) has the ability to become A(orange). Which makes no sence at all. (and I realize that you stated that incorrectly on purpose to prove a point. But my case stands.):confused:

[Agememnon]

This is what the Tao Te Ching said. not me.

Did you notice I listed the chapter?

 

What do you agree with about water then?

 

 

I apologise, I didn't mean to point YOU out specificly I just wanted to list my feeling on the Tao Te Ching quote, and get YOUR feed back on it because, at least I thought you folowed his teaching closely. No hostilitys were intended.

 

I would agree that water is a fluidic matter that has inspired many people as to inquire to it's "feelings"/"nature"/"intentions". But I don't think that it has either a peaceful nor a harmful side.

[Agememnon]

Oh thats rite....metaphors. I had forgotten that eastern philosophy dealed alot in that sort of thing. I apologize, I didn't mean to get all defenseive like I did.

[Queso]

This is what the Tao Te Ching said. not me.

Did you notice I listed the chapter?

 

What do you agree with about water then?

 

Water cannot be "ripped" can it Orby??

I know I can be ripped :confused:

 

This made me laugh my *** off,

for a second!

[Queso]

A second to learn,

A lifetime to master... :confused: :)

 

What is it with you and 8balls?:doh:

[Queso]

Jung's peicing together minor epiphanies I've had here and there,

I'm still working on the book,

Will be for a while,

probably until I head off into the woods.

[Tormod]

Tomrod *sic* you are the false one here

 

Bullshit. Please separate the player and the ball. At least spell my name right.

 

How could there be an NON-A if there is no A. Non-A does imply A.

 

Nope. That I do not hold a black hole in my hand, does not imply that I am holding one.

 

But I wasn't even using that logic. I stated that water does not have the ability to fight, thereby questioning a personification, not logic.

 

Then that was not clear.

 

Your orange and pig idea does not support your "NON-a does not imply A" falseity *sic*. You said that If A(orange) does not equil *sic* B(pig), then B(pig) has the ability to become A(orange). Which makes no sence *sic* at all. (and I realize that you stated that incorrectly on purpose to prove a point. But my case stands.);)

 

I did not write that, and I did not incorrectly state anything. You apparently did not understand what I wrote.

 

I wrote that if non-A implies A, then:

 

If the orange (A) is not a pig (:hihi:, then the orange (A) has the ability to be a pig (:).

 

This is absolute nonsense, but it is a statement which shows the absurdity of the statement "non-A implies A".

[Panjandrum]

Tormod:

 

Semantically, saying water _does not_ fight does indeed imply that it could do so, given either the volition or the opportunity. If one wished to state that water is incapable of fighting, you would say water _cannot_ fight.

 

I also find it a little self-satisfied for you to signal all Agamemnons typos in the manner you did. It implies you wish to discredit his opinion on the basis of his mastery of english, which may not be his first language. (and yes, I realise this is also the case with you, but not everyone shares your talent with words, nor your education). This is uncharitable, at the least.