@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."
Riiiggghhht?. Well again, people will, no matter the facts believe what they want. This is actually getting old, so political correctness aside for the moment. Of course you don't see the humor. You never saw the facts.
"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"
LOL!!!! (your favorite word) Because your assertions are based off of inadequate ideas, bad logic, improper knowledge, mistakes? I don't know how to dumb that down anymore. The self and metaphysics are inextricably tied to one another. We are NOT dealing with the western mind? we are dealing with the EASTERN MIND. Different conceptions of the same thing.
"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 selves and in the theistic God." (Indian, 59)
The conception of the atman in Indian philosophy isnt like the philosophy of the mind in western understanding. It is based within the realm of a very ancient form of metaphysics. This may be where things went wrong, because I assumed that you were familiar with the concept? which you are obviously not. The brothers are an example of relativism? like I said in post 3 before all of this nonsense. The notion of relativism is in the context of SCIENCE, as in Spinoza's notion of attributive substances being relative perspectives of the same thing.
Could it be that if
the 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."
And maybe you missed my previous post before your previous post. Can we agree on the fact that we disagree? Lets break that statement down.
1.Can we agree...
Proposition in which both conclude on something unilaterally.
2.?On the fact?
Fact - a common understanding, definition, something definite.
3.?that we disagree.
We do not agree, we have different views on an issue.
"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."
Wait what? No no no, I wasn't implying my education, I'm forcing my education down your throat, what are you talking about "liking" for you to think? First you don't accept to receive my credentials by courier, then you won't accept official transcripts because it's not on the right letter head, I can't believe this!!!! Why can't you get it? I make the cosmos turn, I can believe its not butter!!! LOL!!!! (your favorite word) (By the way, this is sarcasm in case you can't tell)
As for putting my efforts to positive contributions in the forum? this is a philosophy forum where questions are posed, answers are posited, hashed out, and given the right mixture, a conclusion can be reached.
Yet again?
I am going to take a turn here (again x2), and I hope you may as well. I can appreciate your veracity on the subject and I acknowledge that full heartedly? it was well demonstrated. You have stuck by your guns as I have stuck to mine. But I think we have reached an impasse with no foreseeable mutual outcome. Perhaps it is time to conclude amicably.
Can we assume to agree on the fact that we disagree?
