A quick question for the QRS...

[1otherS]

This question was taken from 'QRS-delusion':

1otherS
"If you were a Harvard professor in linguïstics and philosophy and published peer-reviewed essays on your reasons for changing a specific definition...I can see where you're coming from.
You-however- are just a dilettant, correct?"

[Loki]

Man, you are so addicted to approval. It's like your entire purpose on this forum is to denigrate the QRS philosophy for not worshiping approval from peers and women.

Get a life, please.

[baulz owt]

I think we're both baffled as to why someone would reach "enlightenment" then do nothing but go off to live in his own mind.

[Carl G]

Instead of becoming a college professor.

[1otherS]

I think we're both baffled as to why someone would reach "enlightenment" then do nothing but go off to live in his own mind.

Exactly my point. I don't seek approval, I seek REAL LIFE-SOLUTIONS for big problems. What good is philosophy if you just sit in a cave somewhere all your life without truly reaching out.

-For all I know, Dan Rowden is a bigger genius than Bach or Einstein. He just isn't using his intellect properly I think.

-Again, for all I know he has the potential to become "Most Ethically achieved Entrepreneur" or he could solve String Theory.

-He could lessen autistic children's troubles by teaching them real philosophy and psychology.

The possibilities are basically endless for guys like Dan yet he only works within his favoured
metaphysical speculation and religious ponderings.

All these hypothetical achievements are IMO more satisfying than dryly discussing A=A or causality.

These online-debates sure have their use as well, but you shouldn't specialise in them.

[David Quinn]

This question was taken from 'QRS-delusion':

1otherS
"If you were a Harvard professor in linguïstics and philosophy and published peer-reviewed essays on your reasons for changing a specific definition...I can see where you're coming from.
You-however- are just a dilettant, correct?"

In the context of the things that really matter in life, I consider Harvard professors to be dilettants. Or worse, feeble.

All these hypothetical achievements are IMO more satisfying than dryly discussing A=A or causality.

The key word here is "dryly". It shows that such discussions have no real meaning for you, that you cannot see their life-changing implications.

-

[baulz owt]

wow yeahh. i'm gonna have a reading hiatus, esp. this deep stuff you guys love. my body is decomposing from the stress of overthinking

[1otherS]

This question was taken from 'QRS-delusion':

1otherS
"If you were a Harvard professor in linguïstics and philosophy and published peer-reviewed essays on your reasons for changing a specific definition...I can see where you're coming from.
You-however- are just a dilettant, correct?"

In the context of the things that really matter in life, I consider Harvard professors to be dilettants. Or worse, feeble.

1otherS
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
All I'm saying is: It's a dangerous game just IMO callously changing definitions when you're not really qualified to do so.

All these hypothetical achievements are IMO more satisfying than dryly discussing A=A or causality.

The key word here is "dryly". It shows that such discussions have no real meaning for you, that you cannot see their life-changing implications.

-

Such discussions have meaning to me, but they should and could be used outside of this webforum.

E.g.

Fully studying cause and effect in order to use this knowledge to become a better biologist or physicist.

[rebecca702]

Fully studying cause and effect in order to use this knowledge to become a better biologist or physicist [...] I seek REAL LIFE-SOLUTIONS for big problems [...] All these hypothetical achievements are IMO more satisfying than dryly discussing A=A or causality. These online-debates sure have their use as well, but you shouldn't specialise in them.

I've got news for you, 1otherS: God is not a utilitarian.

[1otherS]

Fully studying cause and effect in order to use this knowledge to become a better biologist or physicist [...] I seek REAL LIFE-SOLUTIONS for big problems [...] All these hypothetical achievements are IMO more satisfying than dryly discussing A=A or causality. These online-debates sure have their use as well, but you shouldn't specialise in them.

I've got news for you, 1otherS: God is not a utilitarian.

-I'm an atheïst myself.

-I'd like to hear your reasoning behind your poetic statement.

[rebecca702]

-I'm an atheïst myself.

-I'd like to hear your reasoning behind your poetic statement.

Throughout history, most of the big scientific breakthroughs were made by people who had no idea (and little interest) in what ways their work would practically affect innovation/manufacturing etc. They were simply driven to find the truth. They weren't cooking up ideas on how this new understanding of matter would lead to better and better toasters.

[Loki]

Rebecca, what are your reasons for equating inquisitive, creative people with God? Why are they anymore 'God' than an economist who happens to subscribe to utilitarianism as a philosophical outlook?

[rebecca702]

Rebecca, what are your reasons for equating inquisitive, creative people with God? Why are they anymore 'God' than an economist who happens to subscribe to utilitarianism as a philosophical outlook?

Whoa, I never equated people with "God"... what I meant by "God is not a utilitarian" is that the Truth stands apart from whatever measly goals humans might have in mind. As in, people hoping to find Truth in order to save the world only creates a hell of a lot of deluded Messiahs, and there are plenty of those already.

I like the quote by Thoreau, "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life."

[1otherS]

-I'm an atheïst myself.

-I'd like to hear your reasoning behind your poetic statement.

Throughout history, most of the big scientific breakthroughs were made by people who had no idea (and little interest) in what ways their work would practically affect innovation/manufacturing etc. They were simply driven to find the truth. They weren't cooking up ideas on how this new understanding of matter would lead to better and better toasters.

Can we just agree on this?: We need people coming up with ideas AND individuals looking how to implement these new concepts in the real world.

[rebecca702]

Can we just agree on this?: We need people coming up with ideas AND individuals looking how to implement these new concepts in the real world.

Maybe. But who's "we"? Sounds like "we" is cooking up some sort of utopian plan. Or other agenda. Remember, scientists made discoveries about atoms and then individuals looked for how to implement these new concepts in the real world by dropping atomic bombs. Do you see my point?

[1otherS]

Can we just agree on this?: We need people coming up with ideas AND individuals looking how to implement these new concepts in the real world.

Maybe. But who's "we"? Sounds like "we" is cooking up some sort of utopian plan. Or other agenda. Remember, scientists made discoveries about atoms and then individuals looked for how to implement these new concepts in the real world by dropping atomic bombs. Do you see my point?

-I'll redefine "we" as "humanity"

-Einstein's main discovery might have triggered the atom bomb, but remember: if the average human being were as wise as Einstein, there wouldn't be any "nuking".

-I also think there's philosophic wisdom in Einstein's theory of relativity. It learns us to question the authority of a given text.

[Dan Rowden]

I also think there's philosophic wisdom in Einstein's theory of relativity. It learns us to question the authority of a given text.

Actually, the naturally contingent nature of empirical models learns [sic] us that.

[1otherS]

I also think there's philosophic wisdom in Einstein's theory of relativity. It learns us to question the authority of a given text.

Actually, the naturally contingent nature of empirical models learns [sic] us that.

-Do you think purely empirical models are inadequate for explaining the world in full?

-Have you read Einstein's stance on Buddhism?

-Don't you recognise there's poetry and philosophy to be found in relativity as well?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

There's philosophy to be found in a ball of lint, or an egg, if you know how to look for it.

[1otherS]

Did you just compare an intellectual titan's theory and stance on Buddhism to a ball of lint?

...Let's not wreck this thread, Elizabeth.

Einstein was a deep thinker by all accounts, not just because of his 160 IQ or main theorem.
His body of work did more than pave the way for empiricists either.

[Dan Rowden]

I also think there's philosophic wisdom in Einstein's theory of relativity. It learns us to question the authority of a given text.

Actually, the naturally contingent nature of empirical models learns [sic] us that.

-Do you think purely empirical models are inadequate for explaining the world in full?

That is so by definition. Empirical models (science) are/is our best way of dealing with the empirical. Reality is not just the empirical.

-Have you read Einstein's stance on Buddhism?

Yes. Passingly ok, but with a bit too much western interpretation "fluff".

-Don't you recognise there's poetry and philosophy to be found in relativity as well?

There's poetry to be found in a dog's fucking if you want there to be. There's only "philosophy" to be found in relativity if one engages it philosophically. But there's certainly a philosophical pointer and implication in relativity. Some scientific models have more philosophical "feel" than others.

[Dan Rowden]

Did you just compare an intellectual titan's theory and stance on Buddhism to a ball of lint?

...Let's not wreck this thread, Elizabeth.

Einstein was a deep thinker by all accounts, not just because of his 160 IQ or main theorem.
His body of work did more than pave the way for empiricists either.

Funny. What Elizabeth said is as philosophically profound as anything Einstein ever said. Ah, well, there are none so blind..... I guess....

[1otherS]

-The poetry in relativity isn't equivalent to the poetry in a dog's fucking. I sincerely hope you agree with me on this, Dan...

-There needs to be a genuine co-operation between empiricists and metaphysicists.

[1otherS]

Did you just compare an intellectual titan's theory and stance on Buddhism to a ball of lint?

...Let's not wreck this thread, Elizabeth.

Einstein was a deep thinker by all accounts, not just because of his 160 IQ or main theorem.
His body of work did more than pave the way for empiricists either.

Funny. What Elizabeth said is as philosophically profound as anything Einstein ever said. Ah, well, there are none so blind..... I guess....

I respectfully disagree. Einstein probably was deeper than the three of us combined: just look at his palmares.

[Dan Rowden]

-The poetry in relativity isn't equivalent to the poetry in a dog's fucking. I sincerely hope you agree with me on this, Dan...

Sorry, I don't.

-There needs to be a genuine co-operation between empiricists and metaphysicists.

In what sense?