100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
Edited by
invisible
on
Fri 07/17/09 01:06 PM
|
|
Thoughts are conveyed in words here. Individual responses are based on what those words prompt in each particular responder's thoughts. How the exchange of thoughts will roll from then on is up to the participants. "Groundless" to me may actually be the result of a foreign concept I simply cannot comprehend in my scope of thought process. I may state this as "groundless", yet I do not give my reasoning of my own inability to comprehend. To some, I may be insulting their thought process with my mere wording. Hence a shoe has been thrown. If I had simply said, I cannot wrap my brain around the thought you are trying to convey at this time. Another poster may come in and describe this foreign concept from another angle, one my brain recognizes, then understanding will become clear to me. I agree wholeheartedly. There is nothing wrong with saying 'I don't understand, please explain'. But here it is mostly 'You are wrong because I see it differently'. IMHO that is not the way it works now, and never will. If we don't open our minds to different concepts we will be stuck in a rut for all our lives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
|
|
How that is a response to my post is unclear to me . .. perhaps you could elaborate.
Ab... Groundless thoughts... eh hem... Please don't not take offense. Most of the last few posts were (IMVHO) Groundless thoughts... When you start telling others how they are thinking... Not being in their shoes you have no clue... There fore you are passing a groundless thought... Quote me so we can further discuss exactly what you are referring to. Do I really need to elaborate? Nobody in particular was addressed, but creative took it upon himself to catch that particular shoe, asking to prove that it fits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well.....they arent exactly thigh high......more like knee length. 
Hey you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
pop ups
Edited by
invisible
on
Fri 07/17/09 11:35 AM
|
|
You will have to block pop ups in your browser settings.
There are, I believe, different ways, depending on the browser you are using. In IE you go to tools, you'll find that in the top right hand corner. If block pop ups is not ticked, tick it. In Firefox go to tools>options>contend and tick block pop ups. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
|
|
It all seems to come down to EGO.ohwell Someone throws a shoe in a general direction, another one madly runs for it, grabs it, and then says: 'Now prove to me that it fits'. This is beyond laughable. Its when the shoe is thrown at a person and not the idea that is the problem, and what should be the core of this threads particular discussion. This post was made because of the way creative responded to AB, who made a post in a very general way. And I'll stick by it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
|
|
Whether you post again or not is of course, your choice. It that is supposes to be some kind of moral protest to the conversation, then consider your protest noted.
No, it is not a moral protest, it is an observation of many weeks. The same people will quote and unquote each other until they get red in the face and in the progress overlook the other ones that have something to say. There is no point posting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
|
|
I have a feeling that I need to apologize for this thread.
The reason I posted it was to prove that I can read into any post what I want to see in it, either intentionally, or because of the way I understand it. This is why I maintain that no thought is groundless, because we are all subjective on any thought. Unless we are prepared to explore what is behind it we will never find a common ground. There is too much EGO involved, and unless we are prepared to get over ourselves first, there will never be a healthy discussion. I will continue to read threads that do interest me, but I refuse to post again. I do not wish my posts to be drowned out because the same people fight over the same issue over and over again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
Edited by
invisible
on
Fri 07/17/09 12:48 AM
|
|
It all seems to come down to EGO.
Someone throws a shoe in a general direction, another one madly runs for it, grabs it, and then says: 'Now prove to me that it fits'. This is beyond laughable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
|
|
Groundless... My thoughts... Nope thier Electric (well in my mind) they are... Thoughts, Have meaning, have depth, have holes in them Kinda like Electricity,, has a starting point, ground wiring and so on, flip the switch and whaaalaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa you have connection.... My brain is my power surge,,, thoughts flow in and out,, some cast away to the side for further ponder,, yet they all hold some sort of depth,,, Thoughts are unique,, some not planned,, some not planned well enough,,, Groundless,,, Nopeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
|
|
This forum is a disgrace to philosophical thought, and the name should be more aptly called 'Metaphysics' and 'New Age Religion' because that more closely reflects the allowed content.
We clearly have a completely different understanding of what a disgrace is. I find it a disgrace to ask for rules that would exclude some from posting in a forum that is designed for everyone, and where one of the basic rules states that you can't post something for a certain group exclusively. You want Philosophy exclusively? There are surely many sites on the web that have that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Stranded on a Desert Island
|
|
Ty Pennington - he could build me a shelter, plus keep me warm 
So could Robinson Crusoe. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
|
|
So basically, you're looking for validation on specific grounds. Let me make that specific criteria instead. It seems to me that there are many reasons to have 'grounds' for an idea or position. 1. Logic But logic can only go so far. Logic cannot be used to determine everything. At the most fundamental level logic fails because at the most fundamental level we must ultiamtely begin any logical analysis with unproven premises that we can only claim to be intuitively 'self-evident'. 2. Intuition This is actually the basis of all logic at the most foundational level. All logic is founded on intuition at it's base. 3. Experience. If we experience something this is 'grounds' for stating what we believe that experience to have been. If we have a conversation with someone and make statement about what we believe them to have said, our 'grounds' for doing that is based on the 'experience' of having had that conversation. In fact, this is how we communicate in general. 
4. Deceit Clearly if our 'grounds' are to deceive people we can just say things that we know will upset people with total disregard to any other reasons for the things we might say. We could say that this is 'groundless' since we don't recognize deciet as being valid 'grounds' for philosophy. 
This is all I can think off right off the top of my head. Maybe someone could offer more? But according to creative I can dismiss all your 'grounds' just because they don't agree with mine. What then? That my dear is a discussion that comes to its end point. When rehashing begins, the very value of any discussion appears to be lost as now it has turned to, sorry if this offends, what I would call "a means of external validation."
Agreed. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Stranded on a Desert Island
|
|
A mattress Grass not good enough for you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
|
|
So basically, you're looking for validation on specific grounds. Let me make that specific criteria instead. It seems to me that there are many reasons to have 'grounds' for an idea or position. 1. Logic But logic can only go so far. Logic cannot be used to determine everything. At the most fundamental level logic fails because at the most fundamental level we must ultiamtely begin any logical analysis with unproven premises that we can only claim to be intuitively 'self-evident'. 2. Intuition This is actually the basis of all logic at the most foundational level. All logic is founded on intuition at it's base. 3. Experience. If we experience something this is 'grounds' for stating what we believe that experience to have been. If we have a conversation with someone and make statement about what we believe them to have said, our 'grounds' for doing that is based on the 'experience' of having had that conversation. In fact, this is how we communicate in general.
4. Deceit Clearly if our 'grounds' are to deceive people we can just say things that we know will upset people with total disregard to any other reasons for the things we might say. We could say that this is 'groundless' since we don't recognize deciet as being valid 'grounds' for philosophy.
This is all I can think off right off the top of my head. Maybe someone could offer more? But according to creative I can dismiss all your 'grounds' just because they don't agree with mine. What then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After watching Raiders I would advise everyone to NOT LOOK AT IT WHEN IT IS OPEN.....
We are on the same wave lenght, my first thought was "man I wonder who will be on the opening night guest list????? Would YOU go? I think I'd pass and wait for the magazine article with pictures. Yea, I would wait for the reports myself...lol I'm not going either, I'll just sit it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About time you got your butt in here.
You were missed in other places, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
|
|
So you want 'groundless' thoughts dismissed on the basis of what?
Because you can? Because that is the way this comes over to me. Why do you see it that way? Because obviously it is not quite clear to me (and maybe to others too) what groundless means to you. Your definition of groundless might be far from mine, so the determination to dismiss something would be entirely based on your definition and not on mine. That's why I think I have no right to dismiss something as groundless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
|
|
But do I have a right to dismiss anything as ‘groundless’ only because it does not conform with my own thoughts, or because for some reason or other I just don’t understand what the other one is trying to say? You have the right, but that right does not make the claim true. This is interesting. So you want 'groundless' thoughts dismissed on the basis of what? Because you can? Because that is the way this comes over to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
|
|
If I said that I was being watched by an invisible flying monkey who throws invisible intangible poo at me all day that only I can smell. That would be groundless. But it's a thought that could be explored.
Sometimes I find it rather intriguing to visualize what people write. I had some fun this morning imagining my nekid thoughts hopping through the threads because James said they have no clothes on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
'Groundless' Thoughts?
|
|
I think you said exactly what I was thinking, only you have a better way with words.
I have no wish to insult somebody, but I find it rather ignorant to dismiss any thought, no matter how far fetched it seems to be at the time, as groundless. If we do not wish to take the time to explore deeper by asking questions and actually trying to think this thought ourselves, then it should be denied to us to judge. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
