Philosophy Paper

[So]

Originally posted by: notfred
Here's an idea quacker - you try to prove your point to me, we'll do the conversation over AIM, and you can record the conversation and post it here, or turn it in, or use it as a base for something else, or whatever.

I'll be Martian, you be Hastings. we can do it on AIM if you want.

:thumbsup: for a good deed!

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: quackerww
I'm fine with the score but no one is giving me constructive criticism. intelligence works both ways.

Thanks notfred: atleast you gave me something.

Scrutiny by effective generalization should be enough in this case because it is all bubkus


seriously dude...going from

"is it sunny" to "I see it differently" to "are you even here asking me this crap" is really random and really throws the reader off...


using different paths in an argument, and starting at the starting point of a compeltely different argument is fine if you get to the point in time to keep your reader from wandering ...or burning your text


Your randomness achieves nothing, as in the end, it resutls in one who does not understand, and one who is DEFINTIELY enjoying his narcotics...


mutual understanding by bending the rules, by trying different methods, different avenues of understanding, different examples...is what works...

my point is, you need to direct your audience, even if they don't know where they are going, but very carefully, and still keep them engaged...and then BAM! you hit them with the clause that explains it all..and suddenly everythign you have been saying makes sense and they sit there in a pensive shock awed at the majesty of your argument

yeah yeah..that was all bullsh!t, but at least it went somewhere...

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: quackerww
I'm fine with the score but no one is giving me constructive criticism. intelligence works both ways.

Thanks notfred: atleast you gave me something.

not to be mean, but the dialogue seemed like a novice attempt at philosophy

it just seems like you're saying a lot, but not making any arguments, turning the dialogue into a bunch of dribble

it would help if you chose some methodological approach like hermeneutics or just simply framed your arguments in a more cogent manner

i think you're trying to write creative philosophy, but honestly, you'll need more experience to be able to pull off stuff like what nietzsche, deleuze & guattari, etc. write

 

[quackerww]

Originally posted by: notfred
Here's an idea quacker - you try to prove your point to me, we'll do the conversation over AIM, and you can record the conversation and post it here, or turn it in, or use it as a base for something else, or whatever.

I'll be Martian, you be Hastings. we can do it on AIM if you want.

I would but have no aol, do you have msn?

Added to that you pointed out my ability not to link the conversation. And now that that is discovered I see that this is incredibly pointless to argue. Because I am wrong and my writing is with out direction and the use of linkage is little at best.

At least some one has the balws to back up there pointless ranting, unlike some people in this place.

Edited did not see last post of goose sorry.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: quackerww


At least some one has the balws to back up there pointless ranting, unlike some people in this place.

*Goosemaster*

if only you paid attention to what I wrote:laugh:

<----brutish but too legit to quit:laugh:

 

[quackerww]

Did not see last post see it now, edited.
Again sorry goose.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: quackerww
Did not see last post see it now, edited.
Again sorry goose.

dude....chilll.....I'll AIM a convo with you too if you wnat...

 

[randumb]

perhaps this whole dialogue is one big postmodernist joke?

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: quackerww
I'm fine with the score but no one is giving me constructive criticism. intelligence works both ways.

Thanks notfred: atleast you gave me something.

not to be mean, but the dialogue seemed like a novice attempt at philosophy

it just seems like you're saying a lot, but not making any arguments, turning the dialogue into a bunch of dribble

it would help if you chose some methodological approach like hermeneutics or just simply framed your arguments in a more cogent manner

i think you're trying to write creative philosophy, but honestly, you'll need more experience to be able to pull off stuff like what nietzsche, deleuze & guattari, etc. write

The conversation will have to flow alot better when it's an actual conversation. Try it with me, I think you'll see that it'll come out a lot easier to follow.

I'm installing MSN messenger jsut for you

 

[quackerww]

It's not due for a few more weeks, so I think ill give it another shot in the mean time, if all else fails ill download aim...

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: quackerww
I'm fine with the score but no one is giving me constructive criticism. intelligence works both ways.

Thanks notfred: atleast you gave me something.

not to be mean, but the dialogue seemed like a novice attempt at philosophy

it just seems like you're saying a lot, but not making any arguments, turning the dialogue into a bunch of dribble

it would help if you chose some methodological approach like hermeneutics or just simply framed your arguments in a more cogent manner

i think you're trying to write creative philosophy, but honestly, you'll need more experience to be able to pull off stuff like what nietzsche, deleuze & guattari, etc. write

The conversation will have to flow alot better when it's an actual conversation. Try it with me, I think you'll see that it'll come out a lot easier to follow.

I'm installing MSN messenger jsut for you

me?

 

[Goosemaster]

what's your AIM or MSN screenname?


has both if not mroe of each

 

[quackerww]

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: quackerww
I'm fine with the score but no one is giving me constructive criticism. intelligence works both ways.

Thanks notfred: atleast you gave me something.

not to be mean, but the dialogue seemed like a novice attempt at philosophy

it just seems like you're saying a lot, but not making any arguments, turning the dialogue into a bunch of dribble

it would help if you chose some methodological approach like hermeneutics or just simply framed your arguments in a more cogent manner

i think you're trying to write creative philosophy, but honestly, you'll need more experience to be able to pull off stuff like what nietzsche, deleuze & guattari, etc. write

The conversation will have to flow alot better when it's an actual conversation. Try it with me, I think you'll see that it'll come out a lot easier to follow.

I'm installing MSN messenger jsut for you

me?

Think he was talking to me, email in profile. Works with msn.

 

[WildHorse]

 

[Moonbeam]

This, I think, is the shorter version.

Two monks were walking along as one explained to the other. Everything is an illusion. The second monk was impressed by this and got to thinking as a water buffalo came out of the jungle and bore down on them. The first monk ran up a tree, but the second, lost in speculation over the illusory nature of things, was run down. Battered, he looked up in the tree and said, I thought everything is an illusion. Yes, said the first, my climbing this tree was an illusion too.

 

[notfred]

moonbeam!

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This, I think, is the shorter version.

Two monks were walking along as one explained to the other. Everything is an illusion. The second monk was impressed by this and got to thinking as a water buffalo came out of the jungle and bore down on them. The first monk ran up a tree, but the second, lost in speculation over the illusory nature of things, was run down. Battered, he looked up in the tree and said, I thought everything is an illusion. Yes, said the first, my climbing this tree was an illusion too.

FANTASTIC!

 

[Goosemaster]

I just home and am idssapointed that the socrates bashing didn't continue