Bottom line: Ashton is too lazy to think.
Later.
clowns
ahahI doubt the discipline would survive in our universities if it was only a song-and-dance number, and not something with many potential applications that requires proficiency in a number of well-defined skills.
ever wonder why universities give a philosophy doctorate to anyone they wish to celebrate?
cheap fuckDo you value philosophy as a discipline? Is it just a cheap fuck?
why are you asking this? is this your thesis topic?I'll be more clear [edit: or at least more explicit].
um, sure...If someone holds one belief (or one group of beliefs) as opposed to another, do you think it is likely that they will act differently had they chosen their beliefs differently (such as a Christian acting altogether differently than an atheist, or even a postmodernist as opposed to a rationalist)?
they will flail about to a different beat i guess
hahahhahaAlso: do you think that holding particular beliefs can cause problems with the persons psyche (such as nervous disorders, or depression)?
beliefs, yeah sure. holding onto beliefs makes you crazier, sure.
holding beliefs and exploring beliefs are very different. if someone explores beliefs to the point of understanding that holding onto belief in general is useless, i guess this would be in their favour. less intense emotions?? gimme gimme grey lifeContrariwise, do you think holding particular beliefs, or the act of exploring beliefs, can improve the quality of the person's psyche (such as more retentive memory or less intense emotions)?
well i can see your text here, that is visible and significant, and the result of your beliefs...Essentially, do you think that a person's beliefs act within causality in visible, significant, ways?
i dont know maybe i dont get your questions, i am pretty stupid.
belief is just belief, you see your existence the way you do because of your beliefs about it. i value belief for what it is, in the same way i value whatever.Do you value your own beliefs?
it is valuable as entertainment.And, do you think other people's beliefs are important enough, for whatever reason, that it's valuable [ie. important to you] to correct them when you disagree?
auf wiedersehen
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Ashton wrote:
It is because you don't make clear what you mean by any of these terms, and so your speech comes across as having little structure or meaning. You are not really saying anything for me to either see or not see.
I think it has become very clear that you don't want to acknowledge the existence of your convictions and take responsibility for them.
On the one hand, you make it plain that you are convinced that all things are illusions (as articulated in the second part of your speech above), and yet, as soon as anyone calls you into account over it, you immediately go into denial mode and pretend that you are not doing this at all. This is insidious behaviour, in my view, but pretty typical of the postmodernist clone.
I see the nature of God.
After all, if this fact were to change as well, then it would mean things in the world would start to stay the same.
Again, since I have no idea what you mean by "illusory", your question conveys no meaning to me.
You need to start being far more honest with yourself. For example, you need to take a step back and observe the sheer constancy of your outlook in this issue, and then you need to take responsibility for it.
This constant evasive desire on your part to not be pinned down on anything - even when it is as plain as day that you do in fact have strong, unchanging convictions - is really quite pitiful to watch. And it is causing you to engage in all sorts of hypocrisies, many of which I have already listed during the course of this thread.
When you mentioned on another thread that you had met several enlightened dogs in your time, my first thought, naturally, was, "oh dear, the poor dude has flipped his lid". But then my second thought was, "I bet he is talking about Rottwielers".
For that is essentially what you are - a Rottweiler. You like to foam at the mouth and tear everything that moves to pieces. And I must admit that it is sometimes fun to watch you do this, especially when you start tearing into the flakes. You kind of assume the role of a guard dog and chase away all the undesirables, which is great.
But other than this, I really can't take you seriously as a thinker or as a human being. And I don't see how this can change until you start owning up to the existence of your own convictions, and stop being a hypocrite all the time.
-
A: dude being attached to any conviction is distorting and prevents honesty and rationality.
DQ: You mean, like the conviction that all things are illusory? Yes, I can certainly see how that might be the case.
A: all things are illusory, all things are not illusory, both these ideas work, neither of them work, why cant you see this,
It is because you don't make clear what you mean by any of these terms, and so your speech comes across as having little structure or meaning. You are not really saying anything for me to either see or not see.
i'm not fighting for the concept that all things are illusory, i have been answering your question exactly as it appears.
but when i look outside of illusion, nowhere is there distinction. illusion is not wrong or bad or needing to be eradicated, it is just illusion.
I think it has become very clear that you don't want to acknowledge the existence of your convictions and take responsibility for them.
On the one hand, you make it plain that you are convinced that all things are illusions (as articulated in the second part of your speech above), and yet, as soon as anyone calls you into account over it, you immediately go into denial mode and pretend that you are not doing this at all. This is insidious behaviour, in my view, but pretty typical of the postmodernist clone.
what do you see when you look?
I see the nature of God.
What about the fact that nothing stays the same, or to put it another way, that the world is constantly changing? Here is one fact at least which never changes, wouldn't you agree?nothing is true. not this statement, nothing. nothing stays the same.
After all, if this fact were to change as well, then it would mean things in the world would start to stay the same.
A: take that very word, 'attached'.. what are it's implications?
DQ: If it is an attachment to truth and reason, then the implications could mean that you become a very wise man.
hahahhah
dude what if truth itself was an illusory concept?
Again, since I have no idea what you mean by "illusory", your question conveys no meaning to me.
Oh, I don't know, Ashton. I don't think your evasiveness will ever change.grow up dude. nothing is true. not this statement, nothing. nothing stays the same.
You need to start being far more honest with yourself. For example, you need to take a step back and observe the sheer constancy of your outlook in this issue, and then you need to take responsibility for it.
This constant evasive desire on your part to not be pinned down on anything - even when it is as plain as day that you do in fact have strong, unchanging convictions - is really quite pitiful to watch. And it is causing you to engage in all sorts of hypocrisies, many of which I have already listed during the course of this thread.
When you mentioned on another thread that you had met several enlightened dogs in your time, my first thought, naturally, was, "oh dear, the poor dude has flipped his lid". But then my second thought was, "I bet he is talking about Rottwielers".
For that is essentially what you are - a Rottweiler. You like to foam at the mouth and tear everything that moves to pieces. And I must admit that it is sometimes fun to watch you do this, especially when you start tearing into the flakes. You kind of assume the role of a guard dog and chase away all the undesirables, which is great.
But other than this, I really can't take you seriously as a thinker or as a human being. And I don't see how this can change until you start owning up to the existence of your own convictions, and stop being a hypocrite all the time.
-
-
Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
ash,
If I was to use the term "nihilist" (which can refer to the attitude that holds that nothing is true, the attitude that holds that nothing is of any ultimate significance, or the attitude that all values must be actively rejected and destroyed) to describe you, would you disagree?
Because that's what "Ph.D." stands for; it's a very general label that means the person has shown mastery in any number of disciplines across several different faculties, ranging from arts to sciences to humanities. When they give out an honourary doctorate, universities aren't handing out the qualifications to teach formal logic or epistemology or history of philosophy or in fact any of the subdisciplines of philosophy, unless the person has been doing work in those areas.ever wonder why universities give a philosophy doctorate to anyone they wish to celebrate?
Well, when you finish, kindly deposit your condom in the appropriate receptacle. Help keep our streets clean!cheap fuck
Not at all. I've decided to ask you very basic questions to get a sense of your attitude toward thinking in general: if you like doing it, if you think it causally significant (and hence if you think that it's worth doing), and your attitude toward beliefs and believing things (the subject matter of thinking). Since a belief is basically something that someone holds to be true, I'm also gauging your attitude toward truth (but looking at your last post to David, I'm thinking I shouldn't have bothered; you seem to hate the word "truth").why are you asking this? is this your thesis topic?
So beliefs are a beat that causes a different set of behaviours, although what this behaviour consists of is is not important. You seemed hesitant accepting a label for your own beliefs earlier, and possibly even hesitant admitting that you yourself participate in the process of forming, accepting, and rejecting beliefs. So I'll ask before I label you.they will flail about to a different beat i guess
If I was to use the term "nihilist" (which can refer to the attitude that holds that nothing is true, the attitude that holds that nothing is of any ultimate significance, or the attitude that all values must be actively rejected and destroyed) to describe you, would you disagree?
I'm having a hard time imagining the alternative. Could you please elaborate on how someone could hold onto no beliefs whatsoever? Someone who refuses to believe, say, that a triangle has three sides, or that the sum of 3 and 2 is 5, or even that eating food causes hunger pains to disappear sounds nothing short of insane. Or did you have something less extreme in mind?beliefs, yeah sure. holding onto beliefs makes you crazier, sure.
Again, I'm wondering what you mean here, because this seems completely counter-intuitive. It doesn't take long to think of counter-examples: "this bridge looks unsteady, therefore I won't cross it", "I believe my car is low on gas because the light just came on; I should refill the tank"... these seem like perfect uses of beliefs. Or did you have an esoteric, zennish meaning?if someone explores beliefs to the point of understanding that holding onto belief in general is useless, i guess this would be in their favour.
Practise the analytic skills nature has given you, and you will gradually weaken your emotional responses. Study fallacies to obsession, explore the magical world of deductive reasoning by practising rows of logical problems, master any particular computer programming language....less intense emotions?? gimme gimme grey life
Well, we're always here to disagree with you.it is valuable as entertainment.
David's faults
In a world where attachment to women and womanly values poisons the majority of psyches, I think it very fitting to decry the situation, laying it out for all to see, drying the remains in the sun.
I can't speak for David's attachment, but I can speak to the amount of interest many here seem to have in his personal life. Unless these same people are interested in hero worship, it seems like a grave waste of time concentrating on his deficiencies. I am not interested in another hero, I've got enough: Buddha, Jesus, Krishna...etc. When there are his many great works to attend to.
Since none of you are looking for a hero, I can only mark your interest up to some sort of unconcsious defense mechanism; defending the unconscious from consciousness.
I'll put it out there for all to see, I am a hypocrite in many aspects of my life, as far as working for a living and so forth. But I am not a hypocrite when it comes to women. I have no solid female relationships, either with men or women. Women of all sorts may at first be interested in my aloofness, but soon fade away, when they find out i am simply disinterested. Granted, there is still a large chunk of femininity alive and well in my own psyche (I would be remiss to forgo mentioning my habitual tendency towards comforts). As to being alone and romantically / sexually uninvolved, I would have it no other way. The very hell I see the married tustling in, grows from the very same bed of grass they first made love on.
I am selfish, I do not want to think, let alone provide, for another person, neither physically nor emotionally. The very task at hand is to provide for everyone spiritually, which to me seems to require turning a cold shoulder to the overly emotional and the logically inferior. In a losing war, one must use one's resources to heal those nearest to health, to 'combat ready' status. After the dust settles, one may attend to those still breathing. But for now, those who are smitten, struck numb, knocked dead by the venomous words attributed to David, these few are able to sever the attachment to women, to free up their minds for reality's light to dawn.
I can't speak for David's attachment, but I can speak to the amount of interest many here seem to have in his personal life. Unless these same people are interested in hero worship, it seems like a grave waste of time concentrating on his deficiencies. I am not interested in another hero, I've got enough: Buddha, Jesus, Krishna...etc. When there are his many great works to attend to.
Since none of you are looking for a hero, I can only mark your interest up to some sort of unconcsious defense mechanism; defending the unconscious from consciousness.
I'll put it out there for all to see, I am a hypocrite in many aspects of my life, as far as working for a living and so forth. But I am not a hypocrite when it comes to women. I have no solid female relationships, either with men or women. Women of all sorts may at first be interested in my aloofness, but soon fade away, when they find out i am simply disinterested. Granted, there is still a large chunk of femininity alive and well in my own psyche (I would be remiss to forgo mentioning my habitual tendency towards comforts). As to being alone and romantically / sexually uninvolved, I would have it no other way. The very hell I see the married tustling in, grows from the very same bed of grass they first made love on.
I am selfish, I do not want to think, let alone provide, for another person, neither physically nor emotionally. The very task at hand is to provide for everyone spiritually, which to me seems to require turning a cold shoulder to the overly emotional and the logically inferior. In a losing war, one must use one's resources to heal those nearest to health, to 'combat ready' status. After the dust settles, one may attend to those still breathing. But for now, those who are smitten, struck numb, knocked dead by the venomous words attributed to David, these few are able to sever the attachment to women, to free up their minds for reality's light to dawn.
But for now, those who are smitten, struck numb, knocked dead by the venomous words attributed to David, these few are able to sever the attachment to women, to free up their minds for reality's light to dawn.
Tell me again Bryan how you idolizing David, lapping up the supposed wisdom of his words, and making him into your own personal superhero is supposed to render you anything other than a follower and David, an ordinary ego-driven human being who just loves, loves, loves to have people bat their eyes at him and say, "Gosh, can I be a member of your flock Mr. Quinn? Can I? Can I?"
Tell me again Bryan how you idolizing David, lapping up the supposed wisdom of his words, and making him into your own personal superhero is supposed to render you anything other than a follower and David, an ordinary ego-driven human being who just loves, loves, loves to have people bat their eyes at him and say, "Gosh, can I be a member of your flock Mr. Quinn? Can I? Can I?"