Ierrellus

Mu,

I am at a loss to understand your ideas. If you had wished to enter into a serious philosophical dicussion, your first post would not have entertained judgmental statements such as those that are self-or-other effacing, including remarks on boredom. Consequently, I and others took your remarks at face value and responded accordingly.

If you had wished to discuss an idea which Camus
stated, you might have presented it as an admirable challenge rather than as a personalized {ad hominem} affrontary.

Incidentally, Camus thought Sisyphus was psychologically content forever rolling the stone because it gave him a meaning for existence. I can't do that.


You could also see in Nial Scorva's thread a similar proposition to that stated by Camus.
I have no animosity toward you; but I will respond to what's given.

Ierrellus

PAX

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

emphryio

The people who bother to discuss whatever particular topic they are discussing usually do think that the particular topic is worth caring about, and that it is serious, it does matter.

That may be why I stay out of most threads. Because I'm afraid I think most of the "questions" in Philosophy, have an answer that results in absolutely no action of any kind. And I mean no action now, and also no action at any time in the far future as a result of discussions on the present topic in conjunction with discussions on future topics.

In other words, it is no more than exercise for the mind, like chess. Of course there's nothing wrong with chess, but I would say there is something wrong with philosophy. Because this type of "chess-like" philosophy may be drowning out any philosophy of practical value.

Or maybe not. Maybe I should spend a couple of years solely studying "established" philosophy before I have much right to say such a thing.

Ierrellus

emphryio,

Hope I spelled it right. Your concept of philosophic debate as a chess game is accurate as far as it goes. The next question is why play chess. In a philosophical debate what one generally meets is a personal philosophy based on one's experience and the acceptance by one of mutually substantive beliefs.

Since personal philosophy and personal identity become intertwined, the personal comes to the front when the philosophy is challenged. There exists, however, a decorum of argumentation which should evade the personal and seek mutual clarity.

Ask yourself--why play at all?


Ierrellus

Pax

Mu

Ierrelus - I ask you : Why play at all ?

Why do you play ?

Mu

snatchbalance for president ! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Ierrellus

Mu,

Why do I play? I'm an old fart who still loves to learn. "It is all that the young can do for the old--to shock them and keep them up to date". G.B. Shaw. So I am here for my shock of recognition--fresh approaches to the old philosophical conundrums and fine looks at what's happening in the world now. Also, in one sense of Blake's "opposition is true friendship", I get a few cobwebs swept out of my mind for free.

Also, it's fun.

Ierrellus

Pax

Mu

Ierrellus - I seem to have put your nose out joint. Apologies if my rib nudging has offended you - I find that baiting for a rise only tends to wind up those with an overblown sense of something to defend.

Your statement that personal identity and personal philosophy become intertwined is somewhat presumptuous if you are attempting to suggest that this is the case for anyone other than yourself. Identification with a belief system is the precursor of idolatry, which is something I have no time for.

Descriptions of the universe do not and cannot contain it all, and are therefore relevant only in a specific context. Poetry is as useful as quantum mechanics in understanding the nature of existence, but not when smashing sub-atomic particles together.

I, personally, am with emphryion on this one...In the Toltec framework endless anal-ysing of ideas is simply adding to your 'inventory', and only serves to distance you further and further from the truth.

FOR SALE : Stereo recording of the sound of one hand clapping. Also available in Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound.

Waste no more time pondering ancient Zen koans

Get ON with your life !

Next week : Secret recording of tree falling in woods. Find out if it really DOES make a sound !

Ierrellus

Mu,

I don't know why, but I keep trying. In no way have I ever insinuated that I was not among the "most" who equate philosophy with identity. I have no such bias.

In my last post, which apparently you did not read, I attempted to give reasons for my love of philosophical debate, whether it settles the word's problems or not, it is interesting, fun and enlightening.

Your sense of human psychology is inadequate to determine my concern for you or for philosophy.
But I respond, because I do care and cannot understand your aversion to philosophy. You should, IMO, talk with Wassim, or go to chats or whatever.

Berkeley's tree-falling sound is three centuries old!


Ierrellus

PAX

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Adrian Selby

Mu, what about ethics?

Would you say philosophical analysisof moral problems was a waste of time?

Adrian

One of the last sane

Be careful about getting philosophical about the sound of one hand clapping. The sound of one hand clapping is something I discovered many years ago that I can demonstrate, with either hand. I'm double-jointed, and it is easy for me to make the tips of my fingers clap against the base of my palm. I've never met anyone else who can do it, but I rather doubt I'm the only such person in the world