On a Method for Correct Philosophizing

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

HexHammer
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 08:40 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;172326 wrote:
- Knowledge is all about naive metaphors, I thought you knew better this days...
- Your idea of Poetry and its intrinsic value seams to show that you have been reading the wrong books so far...
- And what "Reality" are you talking about from the height of that golden pedestal that you seam to have reached in your knowing ?

...Bring some light to our poor and shallow souls if you please sir !
~99% of all people lack rationallity, and will produce nonsens and idiocy on a large scale. They will resort to selfcenterdness, only look at what looks good, but not what is good as they are unable to distinct how useful something is, in which relation something is useful, and when it's bad.

..all translating into following..

When I was in a highly regarded newspaper, the boss was top 30 ritches person in Denmark and everybody saw him as some kind of divinity who could do no wrong, I was horrorfyed how bad things were in his buisness. All security were slacking, no eye washing fluid in the chemical room, loads of brochures at the fire exit ..etc.
I got the worst task ..the internal newsletter for all employees, it took about 8-22h, but I boiled it down to 2-3h, and for the first time in 14 years the boss got the correctur on time.
Else I went to all other departmens and meddled in their buisness, though I had no education.
No mr IT chief, don't buy a Voodoo 3 card, but buy a dedicated 2D card for the ad-designers.
Mr Big Boss, your sales database needs to be domped, it's utterly outdated, it's programmed over 3 major overhauls, meaning it's essentially DOS, W95 and W-XP in the same OS, that noone can figure out, needs 14 days of education before any sales dude can operate it, and even then many still has major difficulties.
Mr Big Boss, you need to scrap those PC's, they'r like 5000% overcapacity, of their HD, get terminals.

So with no formal education, contrary his highly educated and higly paid workers, I was quite unique, I knew it all would go to Hell and tryed to leave, but got called back 3 times by an offer I couldn't refuse, but 3rd time I told the boss a terrible prophecy: Your expantion in Europe will fail ..your internet will fail ..and you will fail.
Indeed everything failed, and 4 years later the boss would be demoted for juggeling with shares, 5 years later he would throw all his fortune away (3.2 billion kroner)

At a Net-Cafe, I would silence the most noisiest group, even the owner would sit and yell and scream with them, when playing Age of Kings.
I started with the yongest who were a Buddhist ..saying "..Buddha would never speak such angry words, he would with his wisdom reason with his friends." He understood that and henchforth was silent, then unfortunaly the philosopher was the least intelligent and couldn't understand that he was a total idiot, when screaming at the others "HELP ME" and he would NEVER send help to others, further he couldn't understand the simple reason others didn't send help, was they had no troops to send.
I had a simple standoff with him, telling him to $+FU!! A kindergarten dude would assist me in bringing him down.

The owner I told him he was being a hippocryte, if he asked for help, then he should also send help, which he never did, and he caved in.

The law student was the most arrogant and hardest to crack, he would sit and blame everybody else for his personal faliure. I cracked him by saying "what you say is unreasonable, and the way you say it, which is why you will fail as a lawyer"

---------------

So usually I do think I know what I'm talking about, I'm an extremely good principle analyst ..which is why I consider myself a superior philosopher to most in this forum, and I'm sorry that I'm full of myself.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 09:27 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;172348 wrote:
~99% of all people lack rationallity, and will produce nonsens and idiocy on a large scale. They will resort to selfcenterdness, only look at what looks good, but not what is good as they are unable to distinct how useful something is, in which relation something is useful, and when it's bad.

..all translating into following..

When I was in a highly regarded newspaper, the boss was top 30 ritches person in Denmark and everybody saw him as some kind of divinity who could do no wrong, I was horrorfyed how bad things were in his buisness. All security were slacking, no eye washing fluid in the chemical room, loads of brochures at the fire exit ..etc.
I got the worst task ..the internal newsletter for all employees, it took about 8-22h, but I boiled it down to 2-3h, and for the first time in 14 years the boss got the correctur on time.
Else I went to all other departmens and meddled in their buisness, though I had no education.
No mr IT chief, don't buy a Voodoo 3 card, but buy a dedicated 2D card for the ad-designers.
Mr Big Boss, your sales database needs to be domped, it's utterly outdated, it's programmed over 3 major overhauls, meaning it's essentially DOS, W95 and W-XP in the same OS, that noone can figure out, needs 14 days of education before any sales dude can operate it, and even then many still has major difficulties.
Mr Big Boss, you need to scrap those PC's, they'r like 5000% overcapacity, of their HD, get terminals.

So with no formal education, contrary his highly educated and higly paid workers, I was quite unique, I knew it all would go to Hell and tryed to leave, but got called back 3 times by an offer I couldn't refuse, but 3rd time I told the boss a terrible prophecy: Your expantion in Europe will fail ..your internet will fail ..and you will fail.
Indeed everything failed, and 4 years later the boss would be demoted for juggeling with shares, 5 years later he would throw all his fortune away (3.2 billion kroner)

At a Net-Cafe, I would silence the most noisiest group, even the owner would sit and yell and scream with them, when playing Age of Kings.
I started with the yongest who were a Buddhist ..saying "..Buddha would never speak such angry words, he would with his wisdom reason with his friends." He understood that and henchforth was silent, then unfortunaly the philosopher was the least intelligent and couldn't understand that he was a total idiot, when screaming at the others "HELP ME" and he would NEVER send help to others, further he couldn't understand the simple reason others didn't send help, was they had no troops to send.
I had a simple standoff with him, telling him to $+FU!! A kindergarten dude would assist me in bringing him down.

The owner I told him he was being a hippocryte, if he asked for help, then he should also send help, which he never did, and he caved in.

The law student was the most arrogant and hardest to crack, he would sit and blame everybody else for his personal faliure. I cracked him by saying "what you say is unreasonable, and the way you say it, which is why you will fail as a lawyer"

---------------

So usually I do think I know what I'm talking about, I'm an extremely good principle analyst ..which is why I consider myself a superior philosopher to most in this forum, and I'm sorry that I'm full of myself.


I can relate to everything you said except your last sentence...what is the point ?
Even if you were to know better then others does that make you happy ? In my case it makes me sad and lonely if in such situation, so I allays try a minimum bridge, a contact point...that makes me happy !
I as many others around the world experience the very same things that you just mention above, everyday this days, to much information for common folks to deal with I guess... the point being, I get the same frustration out of such poor reasoning in the simplest things of life everywhere around me but I try to deal with it pedagogically, and breathe in between...get a grip on yourself and stop smashing ants in your path... it only shows that you still young minded at heart and have a lot to learn in this world...you need a ccleanner bin in your hard drive or a defrag run...:cool:

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 10:37 PM ----------

I do prefer Civ. 4 to Age of Kings...
(...to much clicking for me...)
X3 Terran Conflict is a nice deal also...Smile
(...The name and story telling are poor in charisma...nevertheless this game is a rough diamond with a single player do it all huge sand box worth a shoot if you can spare the humongous time line it demands to get its depth ...)

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 11:19 PM ----------



---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 11:43 PM ----------

For the sake of humbleness I could push it further and ask you how would you feel in 25 years time if confronted with a ten thousand times IQ superior AI unit given carbon based processors (us) are by lack of speed outdated and that now is the time for silicone and other materials such like to arise and push a revolution...
( hell, they, the revolutions, always start with materials, do they not ??? )...well, how would you take it then ?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 10:45 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Hey there! I think I got that subtle crack at tautology-concerns. And you are right, really. But metaphors are not recognized for what they are worth, probably precisely because the tautologous is not recognized as a simple basic intuition.. And yet the zone of tautology is minuscule. So logic is over-rated, really, and the metaphorical hazy nature of language use ignored, because clarity is beautiful.

Therefore let's get the truth-beauty thing into consciousness. And see that our proofs are intuitive at the root. And perhaps see also how much coherence is a part of our non-tautological truths. I think the correspondence theory of truth in its usual sense is practical but primitive philosophically. We live in our metaphors. We largely create our reality as far as it is intelligible.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 11:02 pm
@Reconstructo,
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 11:11 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;172379 wrote:


I relate to all of this. It's generally my view as well. Perhaps all concepts but the source concept exist in relation to sensation and emotion. And concepts like mind/matter and self/other are simply distinctions within the body of concept.

Wisdom is indeed in being, in love and beauty, and not in thinking. Except that thinking can point the way, clear away illusions and distractions. I feel that math and logic reveal the pure clear source of thought, and also its emptiness. If the root of concept is unified nothingness, or the completely abstract being, then all other thoughts are seen for passing inter-relationships. And the thought of things-outside-thought is of course still a thought.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 11:18 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;172384 wrote:
I relate to all of this. It's generally my view as well. Perhaps all concepts but the source concept exist in relation to sensation and emotion. And concepts like mind/matter and self/other are simply distinctions within the body of concept.

Wisdom is indeed in being, in love and beauty, and not in thinking. Except that thinking can point the way, clear away illusions and distractions. I feel that math and logic reveal the pure clear source of thought, and also its emptiness. If the root of concept is unified nothingness, or the completely abstract being, then all other thoughts are seen for passing inter-relationships. And the thought of things-outside-thought is of course still a thought.


---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 12:27 AM ----------

Hey Hex, check in and stop being a guest !...:poke-eye:Laughing :a-ok:
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 02:43 am
@Ding an Sich,
Thanks, Ding_an_Sich. I admire the clarity of your writing and grasp of the subject matter. I agree with your approach, although with the addition of dialectic, which I think has been mentioned. I think you are right in emphasizing an appreciation of the tradition. I myself have only come to realize in the last few years, the nature of some of the core ideas in Western philosophy, in particular, which have provided a theme around which many disparate individual minds have debated and contemplated for centuries. But it is difficult to be completely methodical about it because an important part of it must always be intuitive as well as logical; actually I would say the intuitive aspect must be prior to the logical. So it relies very much on the student getting the gist of some of these major themes, going right back to the beginning of the tradition, and then really exploring how they have been developed through the ages since. I think it is also important to have a sympathetic relationship with some of the great philosophers, to really get to know some of them well enough to really see things through their eyes, as far as possible, anyway. I don't suppose I have much more to add, other than to say I admire your approach and knowledge of the subject.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 03:02 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;172356 wrote:
I can relate to everything you said except your last sentence...what is the point ?
Was just tired of your usual arrogant attitude, so I made a long selfprasial post.

Fil. Albuquerque;172326 wrote:
Why dont you stop being fallacious and get back to the argument at hand instead of digressing to how the United States is doing such-and-such. I could care less what they are doing, as that does not concern the thread as well as lacking in contribution to what I presented. You have still yet to show me, with sufficient proof, why philosophy fails without the aid of psychology. If you cannot do this, or critique my method, then leave. Unless of course you are trying to critique my method by inadvertently "failing" philosophy. Stay on topic!
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 06:32 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;172415 wrote:
Was just tired of your usual arrogant attitude, so I made a long selfprasial post.


Do me a favour and please pay enough attention to at least not miss quote me...(check your last post)
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 07:08 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;172426 wrote:
Do me a favour and please pay enough attention to at least not miss quote me...(check your last post)
I have copy and pasted, so I fail to see where I have misquoted.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 08:23 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;172316 wrote:
What you fail to see, is what I provide is intelligent philosophy.
What you want are pretty naive methaphors, which essentially is poetry, which has little to do with reality.


What I ask of you is not a metaphorical naivety, as I require syllogistic or mathematical logic from you. Im talking about the form of your argument, which has, up until this point, proved insufficiently how philosophy fails without psychology on account of the blatant fallacies you use. You have merely given me an example of one philosopher (Karl Marx), and shown that his (even though you barely do this as you do not cite any of the sources you mention in psychology) philosophy (which is really only an economic theory) fails on account of the inner constitution of man i.e., that by his very he is doomed to self-centerdness. Let me explain your errors in your oh so intelligent thinking.

1) You have committed the fallacy of equivocation by using philosophy to specify a specific philosophy, whereas I demanded you prove to me, on a sufficient basis of the grounds of logic, that philosophy (in general) fails without the aid of psychology.


2) You have committed the red herring fallacy in a later part to try an support your weak premisses by saying that, and I quote:

"Why does the western cast their lot with USA? Because they want to ally themselves with a humanistic regime, contrary a bloody regime as the commies, who doesn't have any qualms sending millions to labour
camps ..and die, Sun Tzu warned about such ill behaviour."

This has nothing to do with the argument at hand, and is indeed moving on to some other argument, the likes of which DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PREVIOUS ONE. You have created a distraction, and have thus added nothing to the argument in which I asked you to present. Therefore, you have committed the red herring fallacy.

Logic has everything to do with reality as Logic itself is a pure science that rests within man's Reason. In essence, we can only think logically. Granted this logic may fall into error (which you yourself have proved), but its nevertheless apparent that the construction of this world (as representation) is the only world we have, and is indeed what we constitute as reality. If you would like to argue about this point youre more than welcome to. Nevertheless, the proper application of logic must conform to reality (representation) and not in mere phantasms.

Ball is in your court pal. Like I said in my last post: either provide a legitimate argument, critique my method, or leave. I do not want people talking on this thread if they are not going to contribute to it. That includes the rest of you. Thank you for your time.

Note: I could care less if you think intelligently. Logic and Intelligence are two different corollaries. One could very well be intelligent without making sound arguments or a good use of logic. Once again you have failed on your part and have resorted to making yourself above the usual human. In essence, I dont care about your intelligence. I care about the form and soundness of your argument. Your intelligence is IRRELEVANT.

---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 10:29 AM ----------

jeeprs;172414 wrote:
Thanks, Ding_an_Sich. I admire the clarity of your writing and grasp of the subject matter. I agree with your approach, although with the addition of dialectic, which I think has been mentioned. I think you are right in emphasizing an appreciation of the tradition. I myself have only come to realize in the last few years, the nature of some of the core ideas in Western philosophy, in particular, which have provided a theme around which many disparate individual minds have debated and contemplated for centuries. But it is difficult to be completely methodical about it because an important part of it must always be intuitive as well as logical; actually I would say the intuitive aspect must be prior to the logical. So it relies very much on the student getting the gist of some of these major themes, going right back to the beginning of the tradition, and then really exploring how they have been developed through the ages since. I think it is also important to have a sympathetic relationship with some of the great philosophers, to really get to know some of them well enough to really see things through their eyes, as far as possible, anyway. I don't suppose I have much more to add, other than to say I admire your approach and knowledge of the subject.


Youre the second one to mention a dialectic, so I might actually make special room for this. However, like is said in a previous post, the dialectical method is presupposed as we will always be dealing with new concepts vs. old ones, comparing them, refining them, answering them, and potentially discarding them.

I agree that one should have a relationship with philosophers past, but I would not extend it to sympathy, but merely looking at their point of view. Sometimes, however, philosophers do make mistakes in their Q & A of certain problems, and we are here, as a new generation, to pick up the bright torch of philosophical thought and carry it, making sure that it never falls dim and pathetic. In essence we need to continue the tradition, but by a means of a method in which we can sufficiently carry out that tradition, without falling into gross errors.

Since you are one of the few people that has actually contributed something to the thread, I thank you all the more.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 09:06 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich

I think you have committed the pink crow phallacy by not reading up on the historical fact of commie-regimes are overly brutal and thereby lose it's appeal for any buisness growth, no investors, no buisness, no buisness, no industry to generate great wealth.
..it ends in the rubberblanket phallacy when playing ping pong with uself, then Marx is useless.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 01:50 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;172116 wrote:

This is just the beginning and I am sure there are problems with the method itself. Perhaps others will come along (you the reader) and try to improve, in a mutual way, what I and many others throughout the history of Western Philosophy have tried to accomplish. To this I recieve warmly the criticisms that are bound to follow, and the improvements that are consequently to be made. Thank you for your time.



I find this a fascinating topic. I have one objection to your method though which I'm sure can be solved when the method is further clarified.

What if you have a problem where there is a genuinely reasonable disagreement between two differing views. In pluralist society today we see so much of this and can be easily informed as to these cases where it seems both sides are reasonable. It is also in these cases where consequently I would think a history of western philosophy would not be able to do everything for you, because pluralism didn't matter back then.

I agree with your method insofar as the nature of the argument reduces to a problem of communication, but I'm not so sure that all problems can be reduced that way. Not to mention, when it comes to ethical problems there are constraints which limit one's ability to deal with the problem even if it could be reduced to a matter of proper elucidation, clarity, and communication. There's the problem of having to act out one's decisions, and not only that, but doing so under a time limit. There's the problem between the aesthetic experience and objectively applying its role in ethical decisions.

There is also the problem of how do we know we ourselves in the argument aren't constrained as to how we can communication with each other. No matter how much ingenuity, how can we know that there aren't trains of thought that both of the opposing parties aren't able to comprehend but which are necessary to solving the problem through ingenuity. This is essentially what happened when Mill tried to argue in favor of women's freedom and equal rights.

Another question I have is what does this method assume about the nature of how a problem -of a philosophical nature, which is something we'd need to know the meaning of- is solved. The way you put it, a question is raised and then it is trumped by the direction of another question that comes after through elucidation and logic. So it is not necessarily about solving the question? I would agree with this, if by the definition of a philosophical question we mean a question which directs us to the right way to seek the clarity one needs to relieve himself from a former lack of insight. But then this limits philosophical questions to the completely subjective or at least theoretical, and ethical problems need some sort of solution and practice.

Another point I wish to raise is that in a debate where a decision has to be made there is inevitably the need to understand an argument's or a perspective's place in the outcome of all the argument. For example, to what extent does religion play a role in the decision that the state must make in an ethical decision? You might say, well now we're abandoning philosophical grounds. I suppose what I would say in reply is, what philosophical grounds really are there? When this happens, when there has to be a decision or a solution that has consequences which must be 'objective', does this necessarily imply that all perspectives must show the respect of objective consideration? And I think it is here where psychology is useful. Psychology gives us an insight as to where a perspective is coming from, and what its cause is such that we can objectively consider what respect that perspective deserves. In this way we can ultimately make an objective decision when it is a political situation, and when it is a philosophical situation, we can derive how to proceed (and how not to) from what history has shown us about the behavior the 'progress' of questions in philosophy has been.


EDIT: Please ignore this post Ding, I just realized it's not what you were looking for, lol. I was way off. Unfortunately I can't do much logic yet.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 04:17 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;172432 wrote:
I have copy and pasted, so I fail to see where I have misquoted.


You fail allot and still insist without actually addressing the problem...the quote that you have done on my name belongs to the owner of this thread and not to me...obviously, before so readily replying, you should at least double check it...hope you can do it now !

---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 05:31 PM ----------

Ding_an_Sich;172287 wrote:
Why dont you stop being fallacious and get back to the argument at hand instead of digressing to how the United States is doing such-and-such. I could care less what they are doing, as that does not concern the thread as well as lacking in contribution to what I presented. You have still yet to show me, with sufficient proof, why philosophy fails without the aid of psychology. If you cannot do this, or critique my method, then leave. Unless of course you are trying to critique my method by inadvertently "failing" philosophy. Stay on topic!
Review of Damasio, Descartes' Error
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 04:39 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;172626 wrote:
You fail allot and still insist without actually addressing the problem...the quote that you have done on my name belongs to the owner of this thread and not to me...obviously, before so readily replying, you should at least double check it...hope you can do it now !
Oops I have been too hastely quoting the wrong person, my appologies.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 04:43 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;172649 wrote:
Oops I have been too hastely quoting the wrong person, my appologies.


Well nevermind, it could have been me doing the same mistake...:rolleyes:
 
Jacques Maritain
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 04:44 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Personally I don't have a strict method for philosophizing, except it's more "intuitive" by nature.

I think a good method of philosophizing is one that takes into account all sources of knowledge and wisdom, and which readily acknowledges itself as a means to an end(ie the truth) rather than an end in itself. Many times people mistake methodology as actual truth.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 05:03 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;172443 wrote:
the dialectical method is presupposed as we will always be dealing with new concepts vs. old ones, comparing them, refining them, answering them, and potentially discarding them.


I suppose that is true, but one thing I have noticed is that many important themes in philosophy exist in the form of a discussion as much as in the form of Decartes' 'clear and distinct ideas'. This is especially true of those areas of philosophy which don't admit of a clear-cut definition, especially metaphysic. In such cases, the best or even only way to actually present the topic is as a discussion between proponents of the various opposing viewpoints. (It is interesting to reflect that many Buddhist scriptures, both Pali and Mahayana, are also presented in dialectical form between the Buddha and one or more disciples.) In Western philosophy, it goes back to the dialogues of Plato, and I'm sure is an essential aspect of the discipline. it might only be used in the method of presenting 'hypotheticals': 'the materialist position would be....', 'the scholastic philosopher might say....', and so on. But by putting it like this, again, the ideas are presented as a subject for discussion and contemplation, rather than a propositional truth.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 05:05 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;172626 wrote:


I am not saying that they have nothing to do with Philosophy; what I am saying is that we need to remove these from the subject of philosophy proper (as they belong to science) and focus on questions that concern philosophy, not one's that concern the above mentioned sciences. It's vital so that we can begin asking questions that philosophy can deal with and not questions that can be alloted to a science. That's what my method is supposed to do (or at least try to do). I grant you this good sir that it is hard to sometimes reconcile blurry areas where philosophy and a given science may touch; nevertheless, we must separate them so as to elucidate, and answer the questions alloted to philosophy proper.

Regardless of this; I wanted Hexhammer to give a proof showing that philosophy "fails" without the aid of psychology. What I vouch for has nothing to do with him presenting a valid argument (which, might I add, he still has failed to do).

---------- Post added 06-03-2010 at 07:12 PM ----------

jeeprs;172665 wrote:
I suppose that is true, but one thing I have noticed is that many important themes in philosophy exist in the form of a discussion as much as in the form of Decartes' 'clear and distinct ideas'. This is especially true of those areas of philosophy which don't admit of a clear-cut definition, especially metaphysic. In such cases, the best or even only way to actually present the topic is as a discussion between proponents of the various opposing viewpoints. (It is interesting to reflect that many Buddhist scriptures, both Pali and Mahayana, are also presented in dialectical form between the Buddha and one or more disciples.) In Western philosophy, it goes back to the dialogues of Plato, and I'm sure is an essential aspect of the discipline. it might only be used in the method of presenting 'hypotheticals': 'the materialist position would be....', 'the scholastic philosopher might say....', and so on. But by putting it like this, again, the ideas are presented as a subject for discussion and contemplation, rather than a propositional truth.


I agree that discussion is a necessary condition in order to even philosophize and talk of matters in philosophy. But this deals with something that is outside of my method, as the method presented deals with more of reflection than actual discussion. I will admit that discussion itself is by far one of the more vital tools for philosophy. Perhaps that would consitute a part (part 3 perhaps?). Thank you for bringing that up. Let me leave you with a quote:

"A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring." -Wittgenstein
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 05:12 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;172667 wrote:
Regardless of this; I wanted Hexhammer to give a proof showing that philosophy "fails" without the aid of psychology. What I vouch for has nothing to do with him presenting a valid argument (which, might I add, he still has failed to do).
I perfectly succeded at doing so, just that you refude my evidence.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/24/2014 at 07:32:27