The Mackiavellian Philosophy Sessions.

stormbv

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2000
3,446
1
0
Okay peeps, I am an amateur philosopher, for I seek Truth and Beauty and Reason in my mind, it is my obsession. This is my job now, this is my craft...the examination of thought. I enjoy using the internet to record my thoughts and have them laughed at and criticized (instant feedback), for I am but a babbling Socrates screaming in the streets of Athens! ;) So let us join our thoughts together by reading some of the greatest stories ever written, from the comfort of our homes. Don't you see, knowledge is public domain, just like all of my posts. No payment required. And you'll still have Time to nef your lives away.

Not only will I be able to brush up on what I have already thought about (thank you OCD), but I will able to keep a running bibliography of the books I have read and from which I culled my knowledge. If you don't want to think openly or have no interest in philosophy, then piss off. This isn't for you! Yeah, you...want to exercise your brain while sitting on your fat ass? I don't think you really want to! You don't have the stones/ovaries! :p

Socrates (as recorded by Plato)
Plato's Ethics and Politics in The Republic
 

Nutdotnet

Diamond Member
Dec 5, 2000
7,721
3
81
whatever you've been smoking.....

I'd like you to send me some in a tightly-sealed peanut butter jar.
 

Yax

Platinum Member
Feb 11, 2003
2,866
0
0
Geez, let them take a HS philosophy class and next thing you know, they're rambling on for days.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Geez, let them take a HS philosophy class and next thing you know, they're rambling on for days.

Well besides rambling on for days what can you do knewing philosophy.
 

stormbv

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2000
3,446
1
0
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Geez, let them take a HS philosophy class and next thing you know, they're rambling on for days.

Well besides rambling on for days what can you do knewing philosophy.
Uhhh...figure out your LIFE! Everyone is sedated like Hindu cows these days...
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
13
81
Plato and his over-glorified hero Socrates are only marginally less abrasive than Aristotle. Personally I hold Aristotle to be the person who is most responsible for our current (flawed) dualistic western outlook which presumes (incorrectly) there there is no relationship between observer and observed.

ZV
 

stormbv

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2000
3,446
1
0
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Geez, let them take a HS philosophy class and next thing you know, they're rambling on for days.
Actually, I couldn't stop thinking about God because I was having some pretty bad obsessions. Adapt or perish, I had read, so I used that pressure to turn a piece of coal into a sparkling diamond. I am rich beyond my wildest dreams and I have $1000 to my name. How's that for a payback on an investment. Haha!

 

stormbv

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2000
3,446
1
0
Originally posted by: Nutdotnet
whatever you've been smoking.....

I'd like you to send me some in a tightly-sealed peanut butter jar.
You already have it in you. It is in what you are passionate about.
 

datalink7

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
16,765
6
81
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
our current (flawed) dualistic western outlook which presumes (incorrectly) there there is no relationship between observer and observed.

ZV
How presumptuous of you.

;)
 

stormbv

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2000
3,446
1
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Plato and his over-glorified hero Socrates are only marginally less abrasive than Aristotle. Personally I hold Aristotle to be the person who is most responsible for our current (flawed) dualistic western outlook which presumes (incorrectly) there there is no relationship between observer and observed.

ZV
Aristotle totally dropped the ball on that one, but hey, it was 2000 years ago. Socrates was the real deal, Plato was just his errand boy.

You're already in an observer/observed relationship anyway. This is the intarweb. Did a chill just run down your spine? I hope so..
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
13
81
Originally posted by: datalink7
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
our current (flawed) dualistic western outlook which presumes (incorrectly) there there is no relationship between observer and observed.

ZV
How presumptuous of you.

;)
How Pirsigian actually. ;)

ZV
 

stormbv

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2000
3,446
1
0
Do you see the forms dancing upon the wall as the crackling fire behind you makes their shadows dance before your eyes?

Do feel the collar around your neck which chains you to the floor? But your burden isn't clinking metal...it is money, power, fear, identity, labels, laws, power, observation...shall I continue?

Is anyone who is reading this smoking a cigarette at this exact moment in Time? Imagine your infant self nursing from your mother's breast! Yes, you read that right...Freudian, I know, but wasn't it funny how I put the image into your mind and reinforced it with a description of you as an infant, getting that nipple? Hell, I smoke up a storm, it's comforting.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
13
81
Originally posted by: stormbv
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Plato and his over-glorified hero Socrates are only marginally less abrasive than Aristotle. Personally I hold Aristotle to be the person who is most responsible for our current (flawed) dualistic western outlook which presumes (incorrectly) there there is no relationship between observer and observed.

ZV
Aristotle totally dropped the ball on that one, but hey, it was 2000 years ago. Socrates was the real deal, Plato was just his errand boy.

You're already in an observer/observed relationship anyway. This is the intarweb. Did a chill just run down your spine? I hope so..
Aristotle, unfortunately, is the one whose views have gained credence in the western world. Aristotle was immensely impressed with his little stunt of naming and classifying and breaking down into parts and I suppose that one really cannot blame him since he was fighting against Plato whose glittering generalities were beautiful analogies but not always as strictly fortified logically as Aristotle's positions.

The thing about Socrates is that all we know about him is what Plato tells us and we really can't be expecting Plato to speek ill of his master. We also have Aristotle's word that Plato puts his [Plato's] own words into Socrates' mouth and if this is so (and most scholars think that Aristotle was being truthful) then why should we not also expect that Plato is, in at least some cases, inventing the responses of Socrates' opponants in order that Socrates might look the better.

I tend to think more highly of the pre-socratic Greek philosophers. The Sophists are my guys.

ZV
 

stormbv

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2000
3,446
1
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: stormbv
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Plato and his over-glorified hero Socrates are only marginally less abrasive than Aristotle. Personally I hold Aristotle to be the person who is most responsible for our current (flawed) dualistic western outlook which presumes (incorrectly) there there is no relationship between observer and observed.

ZV
Aristotle totally dropped the ball on that one, but hey, it was 2000 years ago. Socrates was the real deal, Plato was just his errand boy.

You're already in an observer/observed relationship anyway. This is the intarweb. Did a chill just run down your spine? I hope so..
Aristotle, unfortunately, is the one whose views have gained credence in the western world. Aristotle was immensely impressed with his little stunt of naming and classifying and breaking down into parts and I suppose that one really cannot blame him since he was fighting against Plato whose glittering generalities were beautiful analogies but not always as strictly fortified logically as Aristotle's positions.

The thing about Socrates is that all we know about him is what Plato tells us and we really can't be expecting Plato to speek ill of his master. We also have Aristotle's word that Plato puts his [Plato's] own words into Socrates' mouth and if this is so (and most scholars think that Aristotle was being truthful) then why should we not also expect that Plato is, in at least some cases, inventing the responses of Socrates' opponants in order that Socrates might look the better.

I tend to think more highly of the pre-socratic Greek philosophers. The Sophists are my guys.

ZV
See, it's not about agreeing with a particular philosophy, and breaking down knowledge so you can label it, it is just diluting pure Reason. Knowledge should be digested like our food, the nutrients make our minds strong and the rest we just crap out because we know it's BS. I follow no doctrine, no dogma, and have no beliefs. In anything. I just follow my Self, that voice in your head.

Also, language will never be able to adequately convey these feelings of mine, and I will forever try to prove my worth to people.
 

stormbv

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2000
3,446
1
0
I am going to take a shower now. You must be like Water...formless, yet with the force of Nature at your disposal.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
13
81
Originally posted by: stormbv
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: stormbv
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Plato and his over-glorified hero Socrates are only marginally less abrasive than Aristotle. Personally I hold Aristotle to be the person who is most responsible for our current (flawed) dualistic western outlook which presumes (incorrectly) there there is no relationship between observer and observed.

ZV
Aristotle totally dropped the ball on that one, but hey, it was 2000 years ago. Socrates was the real deal, Plato was just his errand boy.

You're already in an observer/observed relationship anyway. This is the intarweb. Did a chill just run down your spine? I hope so..
Aristotle, unfortunately, is the one whose views have gained credence in the western world. Aristotle was immensely impressed with his little stunt of naming and classifying and breaking down into parts and I suppose that one really cannot blame him since he was fighting against Plato whose glittering generalities were beautiful analogies but not always as strictly fortified logically as Aristotle's positions.

The thing about Socrates is that all we know about him is what Plato tells us and we really can't be expecting Plato to speek ill of his master. We also have Aristotle's word that Plato puts his [Plato's] own words into Socrates' mouth and if this is so (and most scholars think that Aristotle was being truthful) then why should we not also expect that Plato is, in at least some cases, inventing the responses of Socrates' opponants in order that Socrates might look the better.

I tend to think more highly of the pre-socratic Greek philosophers. The Sophists are my guys.

ZV
See, it's not about agreeing with a particular philosophy, and breaking down knowledge so you can label it, it is just diluting pure Reason. Knowledge should be digested like our food, the nutrients make our minds strong and the rest we just crap out because we know it's BS. I follow no doctrine, no dogma, and have no beliefs. In anything. I just follow my Self, that voice in your head.

Also, language will never be able to adequately convey these feelings of mine, and I will forever try to prove my worth to people.
Ah, but it is about agreeing with a particular philosophy, just not agreeing completely always. There will always be schools of philosophy that are convergent with our own beliefs, and this convergence does not imply causation on the part of the philosophical system.

As Nietzsche said, "Unconsciously we seek out the principles and dogmas that are in keeping with our temperament, so that in the end it looks as if the principles and dogmas had created our character, given it stability and certainty, while precisely the opposite has occurred. It seems that our thinking and judging are to be made the cause of our nature after the fact, but actually our nature causes us to think and judge one way or the other." - "Human, all too Human" aphorism 608.

ZV
 

stormbv

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2000
3,446
1
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: stormbv
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: stormbv
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Plato and his over-glorified hero Socrates are only marginally less abrasive than Aristotle. Personally I hold Aristotle to be the person who is most responsible for our current (flawed) dualistic western outlook which presumes (incorrectly) there there is no relationship between observer and observed.

ZV
Aristotle totally dropped the ball on that one, but hey, it was 2000 years ago. Socrates was the real deal, Plato was just his errand boy.

You're already in an observer/observed relationship anyway. This is the intarweb. Did a chill just run down your spine? I hope so..
Aristotle, unfortunately, is the one whose views have gained credence in the western world. Aristotle was immensely impressed with his little stunt of naming and classifying and breaking down into parts and I suppose that one really cannot blame him since he was fighting against Plato whose glittering generalities were beautiful analogies but not always as strictly fortified logically as Aristotle's positions.

The thing about Socrates is that all we know about him is what Plato tells us and we really can't be expecting Plato to speek ill of his master. We also have Aristotle's word that Plato puts his [Plato's] own words into Socrates' mouth and if this is so (and most scholars think that Aristotle was being truthful) then why should we not also expect that Plato is, in at least some cases, inventing the responses of Socrates' opponants in order that Socrates might look the better.

I tend to think more highly of the pre-socratic Greek philosophers. The Sophists are my guys.

ZV
See, it's not about agreeing with a particular philosophy, and breaking down knowledge so you can label it, it is just diluting pure Reason. Knowledge should be digested like our food, the nutrients make our minds strong and the rest we just crap out because we know it's BS. I follow no doctrine, no dogma, and have no beliefs. In anything. I just follow my Self, that voice in your head.

Also, language will never be able to adequately convey these feelings of mine, and I will forever try to prove my worth to people.
Ah, but it is about agreeing with a particular philosophy, just not agreeing completely always. There will always be schools of philosophy that are convergent with our own beliefs, and this convergence does not imply causation on the part of the philosophical system.

As Nietzsche said, "Unconsciously we seek out the principles and dogmas that are in keeping with our temperament, so that in the end it looks as if the principles and dogmas had created our character, given it stability and certainty, while precisely the opposite has occurred. It seems that our thinking and judging are to be made the cause of our nature after the fact, but actually our nature causes us to think and judge one way or the other." - "Human, all too Human" aphorism 608.

ZV
Nice! You are right, but I have my own unique philosophy. Everyone should, because we are each unique snowflakes with our own patterns.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY