How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 What More?
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What More?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


0 posted 06-06-2008 01:48 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant


It seems this forum asked and discussed about everything that is very important.  What more is left, except reiterating everything we already said with more or less confusion?


Earl Robertson
Senior Member
since 01-21-2008
Posts 753
BC, Canada


1 posted 06-06-2008 06:04 PM       View Profile for Earl Robertson   Email Earl Robertson   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Earl Robertson

And thus the second great question is asked.
The question that has frustrated scholars since the first great question was asked and could not be answered!

Sanity is NOT a matter of statistics.
The earth is round, germs cause desease, and God speaks.

I am insane of course BUT STILL!!

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


2 posted 06-06-2008 09:36 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,

I don't believe for a minute we've discussed everything that's very important.  (if you pause a moment and consider the unwitting arrogance of even thinking we could)  And even the things we have discussed might be discussed more intelligibly.

IMHO,

Stephen  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


3 posted 06-07-2008 11:56 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Then what very important topic didn't we discuss yet?

In your above comment you yourself used the words "everything that's very important" and therefore in only a short time already talked about everything that's very important right in this thread.  


RedNail
Member
since 02-29-2008
Posts 65
Stockholm, Sweden


4 posted 06-07-2008 12:08 PM       View Profile for RedNail   Email RedNail   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for RedNail

Well I haven't been in this forum for long so I don't know what you've discussed.

Have you talked about why we are so eager to find the answer to questions, to the level that we create our own?

Life is a rollercoster, live for the ride.

Falling rain
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 01-31-2008
Posts 2165
Small town, Illinois


5 posted 06-07-2008 01:32 PM       View Profile for Falling rain   Email Falling rain   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Falling rain's Home Page   View IP for Falling rain

Give it time.. The little philosopher in us will find something to question or complain about soon.. lol.. just give him a little time to THINK. lmao!!


"It might be easy to fall for someone but it's also easy to break a heart." - Zach Booker.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


6 posted 06-07-2008 09:41 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:
quote:
In your above comment you yourself used the words "everything that's very important" and therefore in only a short time already talked about everything that's very important right in this thread.


Essorant, that's sophistry on your part isn't it?  I can say "The National Baseball Hall of Fame Museum", but that doesn't mean I've talked about a single baseball player honored in that museum.  Your observation that everything (in theory) is contained in one sentence, is amusing, but it doesn't at all support your original point.  


I'm only asking you to think about it again ... Are you seriously suggesting that we've talked about everything that's important?  Let's assume (for a moment) that we actually have ... would this realization itself be important?  If so, then our certainty of having discussed everything is already undermined, for we easily added yet another thing.  


I'm sorry, I'm just trying to grapple with why you think a few people of limited intelligence on a forum of limited interest on a larger forum itself of limited interest might have even begun to begin to talk about everything that's important.  Not to be insulting, but I feel like I'm still waiting for the punchline.


Stephen
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


7 posted 06-07-2008 10:22 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

1. The Bush Legacy?
2. How new technology changes lives?
3. The importance of the 30 years war?
4. China or India in the 21st century?
5. A. E. Stallings?
6. Why is there such a thing as cause and effect?
7. How did liberalism become a bad word?
8. Is Heinlein a great writer?
9. Why no capitalist change in the Sung?
10. Are South American tribes better without technology?
11. Narcissism?
12. Is there an easy language to learn?
13. How do we learn language?
14. Is free verse spent?
15. Why do we want to discuss things?
16. Are moderns still tribal?
17. Canadian immigration policy?
18. German politics?
19. Russia today?
20. What is important?

Off the top of my head. The idea that everything has been talked about implies that things don't change, that the world will always be the same, there is no evidence for that philosophical assertion.

21. The gospel of Judas?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


8 posted 06-07-2008 10:35 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Thanks Brad.

Next thread?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


9 posted 06-08-2008 03:31 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
Essorant, that's sophistry on your part isn't it?


No. For  "everything" means just that: everything.  And "The National Baseball Hall of Fame Museum" means just that as well: The National Baseball Hall of Fame Museum.    

I think we already discussed the things Brad mentioned, for we discussed the "Trees" to which the branches belong: many things in general such as Art, War, Science, History, Politics, etc, in which all those specific things are included and part, even if not specified.  We talked about the trees already, therefore we didn't exclude any of the branches even if not all of them could be specified when we wished to make specifications.  They were still encompassed in an encompassing word or example, or included in an inclusive generalization.  
  
One could say we never talked about the red of the rainbow because we didn't talk specifically about the red.  But if we talked about the rainbow itself, then I think we certainly encompassed the red through a greater thing of which it is part.

But I don't think it is the fact that we talk about every important thing over and over and again that bothers me, but rather the fact that we don't seem to come to make much compromise between our sayings and arguments.  They show up and clash almost the same way over and over again as well.

For example, you would argue against my belief in oneness, yet none of my belief denies or takes anything away from your Christian beliefs.  Are beliefs have a complete potentiality of compatability, and yet we argued about aspects of them over and over again.   What more?  What else is there, but most likely arguing almost just as much in the future, as we did in the past?

[This message has been edited by Essorant (06-09-2008 02:27 AM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


10 posted 06-09-2008 02:28 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Essorant,

           Doesn't this depend on what you consider the point of discussion to be?  There seem to be several models available in considering what a discussion may be; frames of reference, if you will, to bring in a hint of another discussion.  The conclusion one  comes to may in the end depend on how one is willing to frame the discussion in the first place.  Here are a few models that come to mind.

     You tell me about your information on a subject, then I tell you mine.

     If one frames a discussion in this way, the discussion may continue as long as there is available information to add.  There may be problems where information is contradictory, but the implicit means of resolution is to seek more information because this is not an inherently conflictual model.

     We will debate.

     The discussion here is about winning a contest as much as it is about the information.  The discussion ends when the contest has been won.  This may or may not have something to do with the material under discussion but may as easily have something to do with the rules of the discussion.  The model is adversarial and combative.
This thread so far appears to be following this particular model, which has its charms and its annoyances as well.

     We will collaborate.

     In this particular model, participants put something together in the process of a discussion.  The discussion ends when the group feels that the process is sufficiently elaborated for the project to be shelved for the nonce.  It may be completed, or it may be saved for taking up again at some later time.

     These are all possible methods of discussion, reference frames. Which method of discussion you choose may well determine how exhausted the subject may be.

     I would suggest to you, in addition, that simply by mentioning the trees of topics of areas of discussion does not mean the areas are discussed, any more than reading the chapter headings of a book means that you have read the book itself.  If I say to you Atalanta Fugiens I am granted no knowledge of Latin, nor alchemy, nor of emblem books nor of Michael Maier.  

Sincerely, BobK.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


11 posted 06-09-2008 08:43 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:
quote:
No. For  "everything" means just that: everything.  And "The National Baseball Hall of Fame Museum" means just that as well: The National Baseball Hall of Fame Museum.

But "everything" is just a concept.  Therefore mentioning it does not cover the particular subjects contained therein.  Does saying or even discussing "The National Baseball HOF Museum" necessarily cover the subject of the life of Babe Ruth?  Of course not.  And that's my point.  There are hordes of important particulars which have not been discussed even if a category has been touched upon.  And even the particulars which have been talked about, have not been explored exhaustively.


quote:
I think we already discussed the things Brad mentioned, for we discussed the "Trees" to which the branches belong: many things in general such as Art, War, Science, History, Politics, etc, in which all those specific things are included and part, even if not specified.


Same answer as above.  Talking a bit about an oak, doesn't mean you've necessarily understood much about leaves or acorns.

quote:
They were still encompassed in an encompassing word or example, or included in an inclusive generalization.


But generalizations do not replace the need, freedom, or ability to delve into particulars.  A discussion about politics will not sate someone's interest in Chinese or British Monarchy, nor will generalizations succeed in explaining everything important about them.


quote:
One could say we never talked about the red of the rainbow because we didn't talk specifically about the red.  But if we talked about the rainbow itself, then I think we certainly encompassed the red through a greater thing of which it is part.


And yet you can certainly talk about the particular wavelength of light which constitutes "red" in a more detailed way.  And especially in ways which transcend the rainbow:  in art, in astronomy, in fashion, in imagination, in history, in medicine, etc ... etc ...

No, the rainbow doesn't cover it all, though it might be a good place to start.  


quote:
But I don't think it is the fact that we talk about every important thing over and over and again that bothers me, but rather the fact that we don't seem to come to make much compromise between our sayings and arguments.  They show up and clash almost the same way over and over again as well.


Well that's different, since you have brought up a different premise than the one you started with.  You are now talking about something in human nature which prevents the profitable discussion of subjects, which isn't related to whether we have exhausted all subjects.  This has to do more with approach, method and attitude, as Bob has suggested.  

quote:
For example, you would argue against my belief in oneness, yet none of my belief denies or takes anything away from your Christian beliefs.


Then perhaps I have misunderstood you.  The problem could be that I am obtuse.  Or the problem could be that you have communicated your beliefs inadequately.  For in conversations in the past, I have tried to suggest that a philosophy of "oneness" (which I actually share) can only go so far.  This is not only true as I see it in nature, but also in the doctrines of Christianity.  Heaven and Hell will not be married.  There are fixed gulfs as between Lazarus and Dives.    And what has Christ to do with Belial?  I am not denying commonalities and connections, but only insisting that oneness doesn't always work.  It is a paradigm that isn't (yet) universally applicable.

In the past it has seemed to me that you have denied some of the kinds of distinctions I am speaking of.  And since Christian doctrine speaks into some of these issues, I have only tried to suggest that your belief diverges from Christian Orthodoxy on those points.  But again, maybe I've misunderstood you.  Or maybe you've misunderstood me.  Or maybe we just genuinely disagree and can go no further on that particular matter (another gulf, at least for now).  Its something that requires work and chivalry on both our parts.  I have certainly learned things from you Ess, and feel that you contribute valuably to the forum.  So I think you should heartily doubt any feeling of utter frustration that pops up (which only contributes to the barriers).  Besides, I admit my love of debating style can be a stumbling stone to some ... and maybe that is part of the problem.  Though I try to be a gentleman and still meet my appetite for cross-examination.         


But at any rate, it does seem that your main issue is with the ways in which sinful and imperfect human beings relate to each other ... not necessarily in feelling that we've exhausted the universe.  Right?  Maybe instead of thinking there are no more roads to explore, you're feeling that having flat tires presents us with the same problem practically speaking?  Something like that?


Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


12 posted 06-10-2008 05:16 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Thanks both of you, for your words.  There is much to consider about what you said.      
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


13 posted 06-10-2008 09:49 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

GREAT LIST Brad!!!

I say we start with 21, and work our way backward?

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> What More? Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors