Discipline and Principles...Not Mutually Exclusive

Oblivious Maximus

I am the worm
Nov 5, 2003
7,483
2,831
113
Serving time in the middle of nowhere
discipline (n.) - 1. Training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior. 2. Controlled behavior from such training. 3. A state of order based on submission to rules and authority. 4. A set of rules or methods.

principle (n.) - 1. A basic truth. 2. A rule or standard. 3. Moral or ethical standards or judgments. 4. A basic source.

Fundamentally, methodologies - to become practicable - are composed by structuring an outline determining principles that are to be practiced, acting as rules, so to speak. Henceforth, the practice [of principles] is intended to be disciplined in it's nature.

Fitting to Warriorism, one has no choice about the necessity of principle. Man has no choice about the essentiality to integrate his experiences, and subsequent knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., principles. Hence, principles are an absolute. The only choice one has [in regards to principles] is whether these choices are true or false. Whether they represent conscious rational convictions - or a smorgasbord of invalid, random sources built upon context which leads to consequences one does not know. It is discipline that will lead man to be principled in truth.

Presentation of effects depends on action. Any and all effort producing effectual behavior depends on an applied action of discipline. Destrucity, reality-based and rational, recognizes this absolute. Doing so, shows us the nonproficiency of seeing the action of discipline [the act of discipline] as different from the product of discipline [a discipline]. Making discipline, in reference, both, the action and content - literally, one in the same - constantly reinforces the ideas we have agreed to practice so we can accomplish and succeed.

Any time man exchanges a devitalizing habit for a productive, beneficial discipline he will be tempted by conditions he has long practiced. To create concrete change, he must hold himself accountable when he surrenders to the temptations. Discipline, and the idea of it works here, as well. For, discipline connotes punishment too. If, when one reneges on his discipline of discipline(s), he is met mentally with the implication of, once again, discipline, he will keep foked, distinctively and prominently, on the concept of discipline.

Conscientiously, the constant influence of the concept of discipline forbears one's desire to rationalize his faltering and he will subjugate to the commitment he has made to discipline. For just as discipline denotes all the previously mentioned contexts, it also manifests an idea of strength and strong-willedness, empowering him to be just as he thinks. Once again, drawing us back into a impenetrable foke.

An aggressive, active, inexorable application of the concept of discipline. Passivity has ruled long enough in my book and it has no place in the way of warrior. A proclivity towards cutting oneself slack, as it pertains to the discipline of discipline, has no place when one sets forth creating their own, unique idea of Destrucity.

Seeing the world literally strengthens your commitment and stiffens the actuality of your resolve. Rampant repetitiveness of avowed dogma, and it's inherent dogmatic principles are futile, and certainly no guarantee of any success beyond the fabulous daydreaming you accomplish.

To become -- ACT AS IF. Any principle one chooses to adopt, and consequently emulate, must be suffused with the causality of discipline.
 
What the hell is warriorism ? Is that a new term?

And why the hell cant you (if youre not infoterror) write in non-academic English? Just because you sound smart, doesnt mean that you actually are. God, this crap reminds of the drivel most philosophy departments produce.

Sorry, got up ont he wrong side of the bed today, and such pretentious messages elicited a rather strong immediate reaction.
 
A most pedantic ultimate warrior. Jesus, I 'd say this was all a big joke, but reading his essay, I feel he isnt in on the joke himself.
 
speed said:
A most pedantic ultimate warrior. Jesus, I 'd say this was all a big joke, but reading his essay, I feel he isnt in on the joke himself.

He's demented. I can't remember that well, but some website was making fun of him and he called the guy's father and pretended to be a lawyer threatening suit.
 
Demiurge said:
He's demented. I can't remember that well, but some website was making fun of him and he called the guy's father and pretended to be a lawyer threatening suit.

Well that makes sense then. Whatever happened to that Profanity guy?
 
Demiurge said:
I think he was banned.

You do realize that Ultimate Warrior was a professional wrestler, right?

Of course, there were like four or five of them right? They kept dying if I remember correctly. So this guy was a Ulitmate Warrior? I cant believe I just asked that question. I am laughing at myself now. so the Ultimate Warrior has a website and has created his own philosophy and he makes up words and paradigms like Prozak? This is just too much for me to handle.
 
speed said:
Of course, there were like four or five of them right? They kept dying if I remember correctly. So this guy was a Ulitmate Warrior? I cant believe I just asked that question. I am laughing at myself now. so the Ultimate Warrior has a website and has created his own philosophy and he makes up words and paradigms like Prozak? This is just too much for me to handle.

I would be surprised if this was someone other than UW. He speaks at colleges, too. :D

There was only one Ultimate Warrior, I think. Steroid guy with dirty blonde hair and a painted face. That probably describes 250 pro wrestlers, but he was one of the most famous ones.
 
Demiurge said:
I would be surprised if this was someone other than UW. He speaks at colleges, too. :D

There was only one Ultimate Warrior, I think. Steroid guy with dirty blonde hair and a painted face. That probably describes 250 pro wrestlers, but he was one of the most famous ones.

So if what you are saying is true, the ultimate warrior took a few too many steroids. Clearly his desire was to be a philosophy professor; its such a shame he was forced to wear a silly mask and act out scenes of a homoerotic nature in front of thousands of hillbillies. Life is strange like that.

I personally suggest whomever you are MR. Oblivious, to stop being so oblivious to reality. If one was to discuss such nonsense about warriorism to anyone, they would be locked up in a mental institution. Or perhaps we are the crazy ones here?
 
speed said:
And why the hell cant you (if youre not infoterror) write in non-academic English? Just because you sound smart, doesnt mean that you actually are. God, this crap reminds of the drivel most philosophy departments produce.

I don't think you have a very accurate conception of what academic philosophy actually is.
 
Cythraul said:
I don't think you have a very accurate conception of what academic philosophy actually is.

too much of a conception actually. Frankly I think if he changed the term warriorism, Oblivious could probably publish that drivel in an academic journal.

For some reason this novel of Martin Amis ( a wonderful writer--maybe the best alive along with Ian McEwan) is coming to mind when I think about this. The name of the novel is The Information. Its basically about a failed academic/novelist who writes incredibly complex novels and academic articles in difficult pointless language for no reason other than to get back at a successful colleague who writes simple shallow novels. Its basically an attack against the increasing specialization and uselessness of academia, but a criticism of the simplicity of pop culture as well.
 
speed said:
too much of a conception actually. Frankly I think if he changed the term warriorism, Oblivious could probably publish that drivel in an academic journal.

I've had more than enough exposure to academic philosophy to know that no academic would get away with publishing something like that without facing a fuckload of ridicule. Actually, academic philosophy in the english speaking world is characterized by its aversion to nonsensical crap like that. It's true that some of what academic philosophers do is pretty trifling but the fact that you think that the technical language those guys use is "pointless language" shows that you don't really appreciate the need for technical language. Without it, articles and books would be twice as long as they already are.
 
Cythraul said:
I've had more than enough exposure to academic philosophy to know that no academic would get away with publishing something like that without facing a fuckload of ridicule. Actually, academic philosophy in the english speaking world is characterized by its aversion to nonsensical crap like that. It's true that some of what academic philosophers do is pretty trifling but the fact that you think that the technical language those guys use is "pointless language" shows that you don't really appreciate the need for technical language. Without it, articles and books would be twice as long as they already are.

I completely disagree with you. ALthough I understand the point you are making, I disagree that such terms are necessary. There is absolutely no need for such blather. Its more or less the work of poor writers who are forced to write by the academic system, but do not have the talent to do so.

It occurs in every academic department. They write for other academics only, and there is the false conception that the more difficult and tedious the langauge, the better the article or paper. Sure there are some excellent writers in academia, but most of them should never put pen to paper.

Of course the major problem now is the fact that academia and the real world have been totally seperated. Other than major medical and scientifc research papers and projects that interest the business and medical community, not one of these academic papers or research is of any use to anyone but other academics. TNot only are they poorly written, but they follow a strict form that negates any possibility for creativity and easy reading.

A final example. I was a GA for two professors, one rather well known in his field. He would literally order thirty academic books a week. He would skim the first chapter containing the thesis or hypothesis, problem statement etc. He then would skip to the final page or so of the findings, and then give a detailed examination of the bibliography. I asked why he didnt read the books and articles, and he stated he read everything that was important.
 
Once again, you're failing to appreciate the need for technical language. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of trying to sound erudite but rather a matter of using certain technical terms that denote concepts that would require long explanation. If you don't understand the concept that a technical term signifies then of course it will appear superfluous to you. I would say that a good writer of philosophy has a command of technical language and concepts but writes in a clear and concise manner rather than attempting to write in an overly embellished and obscure style. As far as I'm concerned, the only shit that you should really be leveling most of your criticism at is the shit spewed out by guys like Heidegger, Derrida, and most "postmodernists." You won't encounter much of that in American universities for sure. You're right that a lot of academic philosophy only has relevance for other academics but that seems to be the case mostly in logic chopping and linguistic analysis type stuff, and that trend is on the way out. There are quite a few academics tackling big questions but one of the problems is that their work is often couched in the aformentioned technical jargon. This is simply what happens when discussions become more in-depth and precising. Anyway, philosophy that attempts to answer how one can live a good life or other practical concerns largely fell to the wayside after the Greeks, excluding applied ethics philosophy and some social philosophy of course. I think it's a mistake to think that philosophy should be directly practical; that's not what has characterized the discipline throughout its history. Go read Tony Robbins if you want that kind of thing.
 
Cythraul said:
Once again, you're failing to appreciate the need for technical language. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of trying to sound erudite but rather a matter of using certain technical terms that denote concepts that would require long explanation. If you don't understand the concept that a technical term signifies then of course it will appear superfluous to you. I would say that a good writer of philosophy has a command of technical language and concepts but writes in a clear and concise manner rather than attempting to write in an overly embellished and obscure style. As far as I'm concerned, the only shit that you should really be leveling most of your criticism at is the shit spewed out by guys like Heidegger, Derrida, and most "postmodernists." You won't encounter much of that in American universities for sure. You're right that a lot of academic philosophy only has relevance for other academics but that seems to be the case mostly in logic chopping and linguistic analysis type stuff, and that trend is on the way out. There are quite a few academics tackling big questions but one of the problems is that their work is often couched in the aformentioned technical jargon. This is simply what happens when discussions become more in-depth and precising. Anyway, philosophy that attempts to answer how one can live a good life or other practical concerns largely fell to the wayside after the Greeks, excluding applied ethics philosophy and some social philosophy of course. I think it's a mistake to think that philosophy should be directly practical; that's not what has characterized the discipline throughout its history. Go read Tony Robbins if you want that kind of thing.

I think we are arguing different things, but I agree with your post here completely.

You are more or less concerned with only technical language, and I am more concerned with the quality of the writing, and I have somehow broadened my opinion to take on the whole of academia. Sorry about that. I do think the preponderance of technical language shows as you have stated, how artificial and pointless philosophy has become since the Greeks and ROmans.

As for the pointlessness of modern philosophical technical language, and ergo, of the vast amount of philosophical logic and reasoning, I think Wittgenstein has covered that topic quite well--and he too is a horrific writer.