The brothers and the river

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 07:35 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
"Whatever. I don't blame you for being upset at making a fool of yourself. To discuss academic merit, and then respond with "LOL" again and again. I don't see the humor.""Why again do you refuse to accept that people can discuss self without appeals to metaphysics? Perhaps if you answer this question you might for once make some sense in this discussion""Why again do you refuse to accept that people can discuss self without appeals to metaphysics? Perhaps if you answer this question you might for once make some sense in this discussion"



I have been trying to piece together where things took a turn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post1- The question "five brothers and the river"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post 2- your right answer to the question
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post 3- LOL! Right, I should have been more vague with the question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post 4 - You said "what is this from?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post 5 - I said it was from a Classical Indian Philosophy book, within the chapter "the theory of self."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post 6- You say, and I quote directly as this may be the start of all our troubles.

"I'm vaguely familiar with eastern philosophy.

If this passage is from a study on the nature of the self, I would imagine there is some important context we are missing. 'That the brothers are too stupid to include themselves in the counting to determine if all who departed arrived' does not seem to be of any interest when discussing the self, much less Atman (sanskrit for soul; true self in Hinduism, ego in Buddhism)."

In your very first sentence, you assume the western conception of the mind.

Now I quote from the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH of chapter four, "The self" (atman) in classical Indian philosophy by J.N. Mohanty.

"The category atman(atma) is exemplified not in the omnipresent atman of the Upanishads, but in the finite individual selvesthe self in the context of Indian metaphysics which we speak isn't the psychological self, but material self????


"Again, we do[i/] disagree. Maybe you missed that in my previous post.""As for "taking turns" in the discussion, how about you try to do something other than show someone else to be wrong, even when doing so forces you to deny a simple fact?

"turn" in the context that I was conveying was in "lets switch the direction of the argument" not "my turn, your turn." Why else would I ask that we both take a turn? That would just say, "lets continue arguing.'

"You like me to think you are well educated - wonderful! If you are, I trust you will begin to put that education to use and make positive contributions to the forum. Of course, I am an optimist."I am going to take a turn here (again Perhaps it is time to conclude amicably.

Can we assume to agree on the fact that we disagree?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 07:43 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
For the third time, we disagree.

For the first time - I'm done with you.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Fri 7 Mar, 2008 10:24 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Relevancy wise... you were done along time ago.

But I agree... I am done with you.
 
Justin
 
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2008 12:57 am
@VideCorSpoon,
LOL. You guys took this to the limit. I read the first page and the going back and forth... Maybe, instead of being done with each other, just be done with the conversation. While you both disagree on the subject, you can at least agree on that. :eek:

Peace
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2008 02:27 am
@Justin,
The point is simple - even if "self" (Atman) must be address with metaphysics, it is possible, like the Buddhists, to reject "self" (Atman). It is also possible to reject metaphysics outright. Even if we reject metaphysics outright, we can still talk about "self" according to a more general psychological definition of "self" - conscious personality.

That someone disagrees with me is fine. That someone is a pompous troll in the process is tiring.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2008 09:58 am
@Didymos Thomas,



Justin is right, we disagree. Don't fire start.



Also, trolls have feelings too, you know. They tend the bridges we use every day and only expect an answer to a riddle in return. [single tear]
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/25/2019 at 01:05:02