Deep ideas about life

[A Dying Breed]

The first couple posts in this thread by Justin are probably the best thing I've ever read in this forum.

 

[Justin S.]

Seriously guys (justin S, Norsemaiden), this is getting to be ridiculous.

It may read like a petty quarrel (i sure hope it doesnt, and if so, forgive me), but the central issue here is the purpose and essence of philosophy itself.

Maybe this should be reformulated into a new thread...

 

[entanglement]

@Justin S. - Say, if I ask you 'Does God exist?', your answer would include everything SURROUNDING a regular person's answer; including his thought process, the influences that affected his thought process, and how this question is irrelevant and how it could have been asked better....

.... instead of just saying Yes or No?

 

[Horus]

That's exactly what I've been trying to say from the beginning. Thank you Aarohi.

 

[Justin S.]

@Justin S. - Say, if I ask you 'Does God exist?', your answer would include everything SURROUNDING a regular person's answer; including his thought process, the influences that affected his thought process, and how this question is irrelevant and how it could have been asked better....

.... instead of just saying Yes or No?

"Yes or no" employed this way is indicative of reductionist "logic".

So, "yes", I would think about the wide range of factors that are the enabling conditions for an assertion, rather than take the assertion "at face value" as some magical floating statement without context.

 

[entanglement]

Reductionist because Yes and No are single word responses?

So you would do everything including analysing the situation, analysing the person who asked the question (severly), the reason why the air condition suddenly stopped working, but you JUST would NOT answer the question asked.

An advice... try and answer the question first before trying to (over)judge the questioner. A question is asked in search of an answer.. its not a request for his own psychological analysis or the question's instability.

I'm only carrying Norsemaiden's flame here.

 

[Cythraul]

This thread should end.

 

[Justin S.]

Reductionist because Yes and No are single word responses?

So you would do everything including analysing the situation, analysing the person who asked the question (severly), the reason why the air condition suddenly stopped working, but you JUST would NOT answer the question asked.

An advice... try and answer the question first before trying to (over)judge the questioner. A question is asked in search of an answer.. its not a request for his own psychological analysis or the question's instability.

I'm only carrying Norsemaiden's flame here.

It would be helpful to not jump to conclusions, or think you will "catch me" with a clever trick- If anything, I am thoughtful.

Its reductionist because of what it presupposes, how it bounds thought, the foundations the language and conceptual dimension rest upon.

Of course I am capable of responding to a question, but it may not be the "answer" the questioner is anticipating. Often, a question will cease to be intelligible under careful reflection.

"Does God exist?" What is signified here by "god", what do we precisely mean by "to be", what is the significance of possibility? These simple inquiries demand that the original question be formulated in a more careful and circumspect manner. There is simply too much ambiguity with language and thought for one to be careless or adopt a flippant attitude.

 

[Cythraul]

"Does God exist?" What is signified here by "god", what do we precisely mean by "to be", what is the significance of possibility? These simple inquiries demand that the original question be formulated in a more careful and circumspect manner. There is simply too much ambiguity with language and thought for one to be careless or adopt a flippant attitude.

Yes.

Also, you should start a metaphilosophy thread (I'm too lazy...maybe I will). Particularly, we should be asking questions such as "What is philosophy?", "What is the purpose of philosophy?", "What is/are the proper method/s for doing philosophy?", and "What kind of questions and "inquiries" are illegitimate and stupid?" Y'know, a little intellectual house cleaning.

 

[Justin S.]

Oh boy, that would go over REAL well.

Ive been hinting at a thread along those lines for quite some time, but youre right, it is a significant investment of time and energy.

If I get around to it, Id like it to be provocative without being antagonistic- more of a challenge calling for honesty and sober-mindedness (a pipedream, i know) than a "cleaning house".

Its summer, shit weather, why not?

 

[Norsemaiden]

@Justin S. - Say, if I ask you 'Does God exist?', your answer would include everything SURROUNDING a regular person's answer; including his thought process, the influences that affected his thought process, and how this question is irrelevant and how it could have been asked better....

.... instead of just saying Yes or No?

Thanks for your help Aarohi, much appreciated. That's exactly it. And then we saw that you are completely spot on with that assessment.

Justin S has already given his response to the above so I am not provoking another post from him.

I am not going to continue posting in this thread because, as Speed said, it is ridiculous and I'm happy to let it go.

 

[speed]

I'm closing this, as Justin S. did mention needing to make a new thread, and this has become a thinly disguised petty quarrel between two posters I rather enjoy.