Diogenes the Cynic

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:52 am

Diogenes was asked, why do people give to beggars but not to philosophers? "Because they think they may one day be lame or blind, but never expect that they will turn to philosophy," Diogenes replied.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:20 am

I guess the solution is for us to break our knee caps and pluck out our eyes.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:22 am

Here's a Diogenes joke.

Q: Why did Diogenes cross the road?

A: To circumvent a dreadfully boring conversation with Plato, who eagerly approaches.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:47 am

Actually, the real reason is that philosophers have the capability of earning their own money.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:56 am

So do the lame and blind.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:57 am

Not if they intend to remain philosophers.

Philosophy is not an "after-hours" sort of thing, except for hobbyists.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:05 am

Dan,

How? Also, I'd like to point out that people don't often give money to lame and blind beggars. At least not in the cities I've been to.

Warp · Post by **Warp** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:23 am

Helping a begger is much more simpler and instantly gratifying than helping a philosopher.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:46 am

Philosophers don't need any complex help. They can take of that themselves. They just need the money.

Faust · Post by **Faust** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:30 pm

Unidian wrote:Philosophers don't need any complex help. They can take of that themselves. They just need the money.

hahaha. There's nothing wrong with being an after-hours philosopher, a full belly is as essential to life as philosophy itself.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:36 pm

Here's a mental exercise:

What would a philosopher do if no other people existed? Would they have to cut the wood to build their house and fire? Would they hunt and trap, gather and plant? These things are work. The philosopher would be providing for himself.

Should he not do this in society as well?

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:58 pm

hahaha. There's nothing wrong with being an after-hours philosopher, a full belly is as essential to life as philosophy itself.

You seem to have the delusion that a full belly requires full-time work.

Besides, there's no such thing as "after-hours philosophy." Anyone that can compartmentalize their philosophical thinking like that isn't actually doing any.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:59 pm

What would a philosopher do if no other people existed? Would they have to cut the wood to build their house and fire? Would they hunt and trap, gather and plant?

Yes.

Should he not do this in society as well?

No.

Faust · Post by **Faust** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:30 am

Unidian wrote:
hahaha. There's nothing wrong with being an after-hours philosopher, a full belly is as essential to life as philosophy itself.
You seem to have the delusion that a full belly requires full-time work.

Besides, there's no such thing as "after-hours philosophy." Anyone that can compartmentalize their philosophical thinking like that isn't actually doing any.

WTF you talking about, all I said is that a philosopher should be providing for himself, not being babysitted by others, ie welfare, begging, etc..

I think 5 hours or more a day of philosophy is very much doing philosophy, I don't know what the fuck you're going on about "compartmentalizing" and all that shit, the fact is that seeing a leech makes me even more cynical.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:12 am

That's because you're an idiot.

ExpectantlyIronic · Post by **ExpectantlyIronic** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:04 am

Uni,

I'm not going to dis you for not wanting to work, but I am a bit miffed by the degree to which you attempt to justify your own existence at the expense of understanding. Many people find that they suffer a lot less if they work for a living, and for those people, it is not idiocy or lack of thought that causes them to live as they choose. Nor is it due to cultural delusions, as all values can be seen as delusional in such a sense, regardless of how far they differ from the norm. We are nothing but the our physical existence and experiences. It says nothing about a man as a thinker if his basic values are shaped by one set of existent circumstances rather then another.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:25 am

Sure. I consider work a perfectly valid choice, I just think it should be exactly that - a choice. And I'm not talking about a "gun to the head" choice, as in "work or starve." It should be a real choice, meaning that everyone is guaranteed the necessities of a decent life regardless of employment status. Anything less than that is not "civilization," in my view.

Faust · Post by **Faust** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:19 pm

Unidian wrote:Sure. I consider work a perfectly valid choice, I just think it should be exactly that - a choice. And I'm not talking about a "gun to the head" choice, as in "work or starve." It should be a real choice, meaning that everyone is guaranteed the necessities of a decent life regardless of employment status. Anything less than that is not "civilization," in my view.

HAHAHAH, you sound like a lousy communist. It's impossible to guarantee everyone the necessities of life regardless of employment, you're living in a fucking fantasy land. This world isin't solely for your own comfort. Not only that, but it's physically impossible to give everyone necessities while no one does anything, that's abosolutely incoherent. You want the apples? You have to pick it yourself, you mentioning that everyone is "guaranteed" is hilarious! For this guaranteeing requires some sort of action on someone else's part, which entails employment. God damn lazy ass hippies.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 5:51 pm

lol...

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:32 pm

I dunno, Nat, seems like an insurmountably cogent argument to me......

DHodges · Post by **DHodges** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:53 am

Unidian wrote:Sure. I consider work a perfectly valid choice, I just think it should be exactly that - a choice. And I'm not talking about a "gun to the head" choice, as in "work or starve." It should be a real choice, meaning that everyone is guaranteed the necessities of a decent life regardless of employment status. Anything less than that is not "civilization," in my view.

I have no problem with you working or not working, as you see fit.

But I don't think there is moral justification for the government taking money from me by force or threat of force (taxation) to give to you. I just don't see any obligation there to support people who choose not to work.

As you choose whether or not to work, why should I not get the choice of what happens to the money I earn? Taking it from me via taxation is just theft. It is not right living.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:04 am

Dave,

Are you a Republican?

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:55 am

Sorry that this comes a little out of left-field, but I've recently noticed that the same people tend to believe these two things:

1) Welfare is theft.
2) Abortion is wrong.

I've been having a really hard time trying to find any normative value which justifies both of these beliefs simultaneously.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:03 am

It's funny, because I oppose abortion (late-term) and support welfare.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:16 am

Unidian wrote:It's funny, because I oppose abortion (late-term) and support welfare.

Well, there is a difference between late-term abortion and the kind of abortion most people think of when the term is mentioned.
.

GENIUS FORUMS

Diogenes the Cynic

Diogenes the Cynic

Chop your own wood, carry your own water