100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 'Groundless' Thoughts? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 07/19/09 04:08 PM
|
|
Ok, from only the first six pages here...
And dear Michael, please understand that this is merely my perception based on your behavior...
My behaviour is not my words. I believe that Michael simply cannot accept the random nature of Quantum Mechanics and the fact that the God Plays Dice. Michael is like... He can't let go... He needs to believe.... He needs to believe that...
That is false. You cannot know my needs nor my acceptances based upon anything written here, so why act as if you can? So he rejects the idea that nothing can be determined in an absolute sense and therefore he's desperate to demand that it can be. Even if it means demanding that rules be put into place that everyone must back up their views with absolute sound LOGIC.
Trying to avoid your personal judgement I asked for a rule which does not demand that all claims be backed up by sound logic. That is false. He simply cannot handle the idea that the universe might be illogical.
You cannot know what I can or cannot handle based upon my words here. So he's taking it out on anyone who even remotely suggests that this might be the case.
Taking it out? Allow me to hold up a mirror. Yet here we have Creative demanding that there be no 'groundless thoughts' in philosophy
I did no such thing. You are not in a place to demand for me. Just sounds to me like someone who is trying to blame the whole world for his own personal failings in communication and logic.
The man is just being totally irresponsible by trying to blame others for his own failings as far as I'm concerned.
He shouldn't be going around telling people how they can think or not think.
I have never told anyone how they can or cannot think. This is quite a bold statement considering throughout the entire context of this and the language thread has you demanding to me and others what I think. You cannot reliably make that assessment from my words alone. Allow me to hold up a mirror for you. The man appears to me to just being having some sort of nervous breakdown.
The 'feeling' I get from your attitudes are that you are intellectual snobs.
Besides Creative does not want to be "understood." He wants to make a point...
Then he gets upset because he is "so misunderstood" and insinuates that everyone else is just too ignorant to understand him. You cannot say what I want. You do not know. Why should Creative be the "Philosophy God"?
Why does he think that he should decide what constitutes valid thinking? It is not for you to say what I think. You do not know. And why does he feel that he can just dismiss the views of others by simply saying:
"It's impossible to think like that, you are only kidding yourself if you think that way". When did Michael become the philosophy God? It is not for you to say what I feel. You do not know. What's his "grounds" for wanting to dictate what constitutes a valid thought or not?
Who said I wanted to dictate what was valid? This next quote summarizes the entire notion of what is disgraceful to me here... Nothing like claiming to make an apology and then ending it with "Oh by the way I was absolutely right and you were absolutely wrong and Jeremy proved it".
What kind of an apology would that be anyway? I never said that and to apply that to my intent is a great injustice to understanding. As a matter of fact, THAT does not follow from this... which is what I said... I already made a genuine apology for hurting your feelings which you dismissed saying that I did not. It is clear that it did. I also already, as has Jeremy, gave logical grounds for saying that anyone who claims that one cannot know *anything* for certain is kidding themselves...
That is still true. The very claim is an absolute claim of certainty. That is why I said that. I was not poking fun at your belief system, I was trying to help you see the illogical and senseless nature of that claim. It seems that it was a hinge proposition, and perhaps that importance level caused much distress to the subsequent beliefs... You saw it differently, which is quite unfortunate, because had you read what I wrote afterwards this should not even be being discussed at this time. I am still sorry, for you, that I hurt your feelings... And for you to then say this is the epitome of being hypocritically blinded by sheer will alone. That's your trademark. Your always out to prove that you're right and someone else is wrong. That's how you approach philosophy in general.
Again you do not... cannot know my intentions from my words here. To me it is not about proving another wrong. It is about evaluating the claims. It is about gaining understanding, which is done through careful examination. Why do you, JB, and some others insist on personal judgement? That is what is a disgrace. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while I can appreciate the statement, I think there is a lot to be learned by sitting "around campfires" and having good conversations about the various ways people think,
and smores let's make smores and have groundless stoner conversations the only "groundless" opinions are those that flout or deny natural law and proven science just because someone is full of shite doesn't mean they are groundless  does this mean that I am full of shite because I like to sit around the campfire and have discussions?
haha no silly you just made me want to make smores the rest applies to other groundless opinions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while I can appreciate the statement, I think there is a lot to be learned by sitting "around campfires" and having good conversations about the various ways people think,
and smores let's make smores and have groundless stoner conversations the only "groundless" opinions are those that flout or deny natural law and proven science just because someone is full of shite doesn't mean they are groundless does this mean that I am full of shite because I like to sit around the campfire and have discussions?
haha no silly you just made me want to make smores the rest applies to other groundless opinions 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/19/09 04:38 PM
|
|
I guess, Creative, we should simply ignore the idea that you are a person, and believe you when you say that you have no point to make and that you are just "contemplating."
If you have no intent, and no agenda and no point to make, then any conversation with you is just pointless. Trying to understand your ambiguity becomes a guessing game, and if anyone guesses wrong then you feel that you are the victim of an attack. So you are totally convinced that everyone is attacking you, judging you, assessing your character, etc etc etc. Now all you have to do is figure out why. Good luck. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creative wrote:
My behaviour is not my words. On a text-based forum your only behavior that is visible are your words. By the way, the quotes you've posted that you claim are 'personal comments' came from many other people, not just me. I'm positive that I did not say many of the things that you've quoted So clearly a lot of people are getting the same ideas from what you post. If it'll make you feel any better, we're probably all horrible philosophers here and none of us are any better or worse than you at doing philosophy. We just don't demand that everyone else take on our style of sloppiness. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Sun 07/19/09 04:47 PM
|
|
It seems to me the best solution is just to confess that we are all horrible amature philosophers and we're probably all 'doing' philosophy wrong with respect to any professional formal procedures.
I don't see a problem with that. We're not getting paid for this anyway. Could someone please pass the smores ? Owl get some more wood for the campfire. 
Maybe we need to start a new thread called "Smores Philosophy" and just talk philosophy and forget about this whole idea of forbidding 'groundless thoughts'? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find Abra's posts interesting
Id likely say, if pressed(or not), that he is an interesting guy. But maybe, if i met him, i would find he is very dull indeed. Does that make my compliment groundless? Maybe i am missing something here. Personal judgements on people are completely grounded. Saying they arent, if anything is, is the groundless statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/19/09 04:59 PM
|
|
Good idea James. Bring the fire.
I agree that your words ARE YOUR BEHAVIOR in a thread. That is why they have RULES and that is why we can't use certain words. I also believe that we can assess a person's character by his words and that we do it all the time. You can say the same thing in many different ways. Some ways will get people mad, and other ways will not. Words are powerful indicators. How you put them together are also a clue. Just because we can't see your face, does not mean we can't know you. I have some very close friends online I have never met. I know and love them dearly. I've never seen them. So yes, you can definitely know a person by their words. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
lighthouselover
on
Sun 07/19/09 06:00 PM
|
|
When someone shows you who they are consistently over time, believe them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while I can appreciate the statement, I think there is a lot to be learned by sitting "around campfires" and having good conversations about the various ways people think,
and smores let's make smores and have groundless stoner conversations the only "groundless" opinions are those that flout or deny natural law and proven science just because someone is full of shite doesn't mean they are groundless Exactly. 
. . . ...PRECISELY!!! And I'd just add: IF ONE CAN'T STAND THE HEAT, ONE SHOULD GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN (or join another thread...) On the other hand, when offended, one should take it up with the offender at the personal email -- not wasting everybody's attention on fruitless bickerings...* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I support Jeremy's (Bushido) opinion that this useless thread ought to be deleted! * THERE'S SO MUCH MORE PHYLO-SCINTIFIC THINGS TO DISCUSS...* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB...
I guess, Creative, we should simply ignore the idea that you are a person, and believe you when you say that you have no point to make and that you are just "contemplating."
If you have no intent, and no agenda and no point to make, then any conversation with you is just pointless. Contemplation is in no way pointless to me, it just does not serve to directly make a point. So you are totally convinced that everyone is attacking you, judging you, assessing your character, etc etc etc. Now all you have to do is figure out why
Not everyone. Dan99 wrote... I find Abra's posts interesting
Id likely say, if pressed(or not), that he is an interesting guy. But maybe, if i met him, i would find he is very dull indeed. Does that make my compliment groundless? Maybe i am missing something here. Personal judgements on people are completely grounded. Saying they arent, if anything is, is the groundless statement. That is an interesting way to look at it. What then makes that groundless? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/19/09 05:28 PM
|
|
while I can appreciate the statement, I think there is a lot to be learned by sitting "around campfires" and having good conversations about the various ways people think,
and smores let's make smores and have groundless stoner conversations the only "groundless" opinions are those that flout or deny natural law and proven science just because someone is full of shite doesn't mean they are groundless Exactly.
. . . ...PRECISELY!!! And I'd just add: IF ONE CAN'T STAND THE HEAT, ONE SHOULD GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN (or join another thread...) On the other hand, when offended, one should take it up with the offender at the personal email -- not wasting everybody's attention on fruitless bickerings...* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I support Jeremy's (Bushido) opinion that this useless thread ought to be deleted! * THERE'S SO MUCH MORE PHYLO-SCINTIFIC THINGS TO DISCUSS...* I have to disagree with you on that. I have gotten a lot out of this thread. I don't like censorship. I don't like bully's threatening me or telling me what I can and cannot say. Jeremy also once implied that I was too ignorant to discuss anything on a science thread. Even if that is true, it is a rude thing to say. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contemplation is in no way pointless to me, it just does not serve to directly make a point.
I did not say it was pointless to you. What I finally realized is that it was pointless for me to be involved in your pointless comtemplation looking for your point.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting about a person is not philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find Abra's posts interesting
Id likely say, if pressed(or not), that he is an interesting guy. But maybe, if i met him, i would find he is very dull indeed. Does that make my compliment groundless? Maybe i am missing something here. Personal judgements on people are completely grounded. Saying they arent, if anything is, is the groundless statement. That is an interesting way to look at it. What then makes that groundless? Well, in my mind at least, it is SO obvious that making personal judgements on people from their posts is completely valid and grounded, that to say otherwise, is really quite ridiculous. I am sure you do, however, have your reasons for making such claims. Hence my 'if anything' disclaimer. I just feel my statements in that respect have got to at least be MORE grounded and justified than yours. But you are allowed to disagree with that. Neither are groundless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I support Jeremy's (Bushido) opinion that this useless thread ought to be deleted! * THERE'S SO MUCH MORE PHYLO-SCINTIFIC THINGS TO DISCUSS...* I agree with JB. This thread served it's purpose. I would hate to see it deleted after all the points I made concerning philosophy and logic. I think they were valid points that needed to be addressed. Especially in the face of the accusation that people on these forums have 'groundless thoughts'. Also, there is absolutely no reason why this thread should prevent you from starting another thread on a phylo-scientific thingy. You're not stuck here. Are you? Would could call the forum maintainance man if your mouse arrow is stuck on the title of this thread. Maybe he could help move it from inside the monitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James wrote...
By the way, the quotes you've posted that you claim are 'personal comments' came from many other people, not just me. I'm positive that I did not say many of the things that you've quoted
Every one of those came directly from you or JB. So clearly a lot of people are getting the same ideas from what you post.
I suppose that your personal judgments play no role? You post more about me than about what is written. Words are not behaviour. Example: What does this mean to you? I like her cooking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting about a person is not philosophy. Philosophy is not the most simple of subjects and sometimes you need to know about a person or make judgements on their character to try to work out where they are coming from to understand what they are saying. Everything you say is your own personal viewpoint, and only yours. If personal statements about you are not valid, then why are your personal viewpoints valid? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan99 wrote...
Well, in my mind at least, it is SO obvious that making personal judgements on people from their posts is completely valid and grounded, that to say otherwise, is really quite ridiculous.
If the post has enough obvious information to be considered sufficient to make such a determination, I would agree. What if it doesn't? Is it wise for one to be that confident in the ability to judge another based upon word usage if and when the assessment comes from words which were not even used and cannot be shown to mean the same thing? What if those changes in interpretation completely alter the original meaning? How grounded is it then, because that is the case here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/19/09 06:07 PM
|
|
Posting about a person is not philosophy. Philosophy is not the most simple of subjects and sometimes you need to know about a person or make judgements on their character to try to work out where they are coming from to understand what they are saying. Everything you say is your own personal viewpoint, and only yours. If personal statements about you are not valid, then why are your personal viewpoints valid? EXACTLY!! Creative: But if you do not state your premise, nobody knows where you are coming from so they have to take their best guess. They have no choice but to assess your intent and agenda by your words when you are not clear. AMBIGUITY INVITES CONCLUSIONS. If you don't understand this there is no hope. Asking a question like: "Is thought an unspoken language?" Is not philosophy either. Words ARE your behavior on these forum posts. If they were not you could not claim that you are being attacked. If words are not 'behavior' then they cannot be an 'attack.' An "attack" is a behavior. |
|
|
|
|
