- 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Mr Big Boss, your sales database needs to be domped, it's utterly outdated, it's programmed over 3 major overhauls, meaning it's essentially DOS, W95 and W-XP in the same OS, that noone can figure out, needs 14 days of education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.

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.

I can relate to everything you said except your last sentence...what is the point ?

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!

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)

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.

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.

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 have copy and pasted, so I fail to see where I have misquoted.

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!

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.

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.

Review of Damasio, Descartes' Error

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.

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).