»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
What More?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
What More? |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
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? |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Earl Robertson Senior Member
since 2008-01-21
Posts 753BC, Canada |
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. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
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 2008-02-29
Posts 65Stockholm, Sweden |
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
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
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!!
|
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: 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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Thanks Brad. Next thread? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
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. 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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: 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: Same answer as above. Talking a bit about an oak, doesn't mean you've necessarily understood much about leaves or acorns. quote: 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: 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: 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: 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 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Thanks both of you, for your words. There is much to consider about what you said. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
GREAT LIST Brad!!! I say we start with 21, and work our way backward?  |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
