Plato And Greek Philosophy

[MGregory]

Hi Thomas and friends,

I came over from "Genius Forum". I like your site, it's very well done.

I have been studying ancient Greek philosophy, and am finding it very interesting. I am reading W.C.K. Guthrie's "A History of Greek Philosophy" series, which I think is currently considered the most thorough overview of the subject, even though it was written in the 60's. In any case, Guthrie is for the most part very objective and I would recommend it.

I was wondering, do you think Greek philosophy is still valuable in the field of philosophy, or do you think it has been completely superseded by more modern scholars, and is now condemned to the "historical interest only" category? I think Plato's dialogues are good reading, if not completely sound in their arguments, but aside from any literary merit they might have, do you think they have any lasting philosophical value?

[a random hack]

Originally posted by MGregory@Jul 15 2003, 10:03 AM
Hi Thomas and friends,

I came over from "Genius Forum". I like your site, it's very well done.

I have been studying ancient Greek philosophy, and am finding it very interesting. I am reading W.C.K. Guthrie's "A History of Greek Philosophy" series, which I think is currently considered the most thorough overview of the subject, even though it was written in the 60's. In any case, Guthrie is for the most part very objective and I would recommend it.

I was wondering, do you think Greek philosophy is still valuable in the field of philosophy, or do you think it has been completely superseded by more modern scholars, and is now condemned to the "historical interest only" category? I think Plato's dialogues are good reading, if not completely sound in their arguments, but aside from any literary merit they might have, do you think they have any lasting philosophical value?
Well, I don't know much about Greek Philosophy, but it seems useful in any field of study to know where others have been before, for two rasons.
One, so that old ground is not endlessly covered,
And two, so you can gain some idea of the biases, preformed opinions, whatever, of those who follow, in this case, the Greeks.

BTW, when I was younger, and before I really understood the idea of mythology representing repeating personality types, even for many generations after the mythical figures, I really enjoyed the Greek myths, not so much for the characters, but for their wacky adventures. Imagine, a god taking the form of a bull to inseminate his girlfriend without his wife getting jealous! :)

[MGregory]

(Oops, that should have been W.K.C. Guthrie)

Well, I don't know much about Greek Philosophy, but it seems useful in any field of study to know where others have been before, for two rasons.
One, so that old ground is not endlessly covered,
And two, so you can gain some idea of the biases, preformed opinions, whatever, of those who follow, in this case, the Greeks.
I think maybe Plato's big contribution (which he evidently learned from Socrates) was to outline the value of using precise definitions of words. Beyond that, I'm not sure if any of his stuff is considered valid by anybody. It seems doubtful.

BTW, when I was younger, and before I really understood the idea of mythology representing repeating personality types,
Hmm, I've never heard that theory, care to explain it? I haven't read much about the mythology beyond Homer, Hesiod and the tragedians.

even for many generations after the mythical figures, I really enjoyed the Greek myths, not so much for the characters, but for their wacky adventures. Imagine, a god taking the form of a bull to inseminate his girlfriend without his wife getting jealous! :)
Their creation stories are pretty outrageous as well. Like the births of Aphrodite and Athena. It makes me wonder whether the myths were originally written as comedies and the public wound up taking them seriously and turning it into a religion :)

[Thomas Knierim]

Hi Matt,

Welcome at thebigview.com.

Regarding your question, I think that one can only benefit from studying the ancients. Truth is always in demand, and there are many truths to be found in Greek and Roman philosophy. If this sounds too wishiwashi, let me put it this way: I think of Greek and Roman philosophy as the foundation of Western thought. It would be more difficult for me to grasp the ideas of Aquinas, Hobbes, Descartes, and even Kant without this background. There are so many parallels. In a way you are right saying that the ancients have been supplanted by modern scholars. Much of what they had to say is based on guesswork and some is simply rubbish, at least from today's point of view. But, the Greeks laid out the main themes. They were the architects of what came. The foundations of Western thought are visible in the Greeks in great clarity.

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

I LUV Plato's stories about Atlantis. They have value for this girl! :) The one that breaks off mid-sentence, I've always wondered what came next, & on occasion I would make up an ending.

[Mental Gremlin]

You must understand the roots of Western thought and those roots are the greek philosophers.

[MGregory]

Thomas,

Welcome at thebigview.com.

Thanks! :)

Regarding your question, I think that one can only benefit from studying the ancients. Truth is always in demand, and there are many truths to be found in Greek and Roman philosophy. If this sounds too wishiwashi, let me put it this way: I think of Greek and Roman philosophy as the foundation of Western thought. It would be more difficult for me to grasp the ideas of Aquinas, Hobbes, Descartes, and even Kant without this background.

When I wanted to get serious about learning philosophy a couple of years ago, I wanted to read "Critique of Pure Reason". Well, although I've spent a lot of time reading computer books, I've never got into anything remotely literary, so it was completely over my head. I soon gave up and started reading about the book, and they say that you need to understand Hume before Kant, Berkeley before Hume, Descartes before Berkeley, medieval theology before Descartes, the list goes on. I finally gave up the quest for a good starting point and picked up "The Iliad" and decided to go forward from there, up to, say, Ayn Rand, who I think was the last "big" philosopher. Well, I've discovered that the task I've undertaken is enormous. Very enormous. Yet it seems like most philosophers have done it and then read more on top of it like Dante, Goethe, Shakespeare, the list goes on. I can't help but wonder, how do they do it? There doesn't seem to be enough time in one lifetime.

There are so many parallels. In a way you are right saying that the ancients have been supplanted by modern scholars. Much of what they had to say is based on guesswork and some is simply rubbish, at least from today's point of view. But, the Greeks laid out the main themes. They were the architects of what came. The foundations of Western thought are visible in the Greeks in great clarity.
I think Greek literature is probably the most stimulating stuff I've ever read. I think maybe because it is so open-ended and rubbishy, yet it presents the issues in such a raw form that it makes you want to fill in the blanks. Plato is much different from everyone else, though, it seems. It's almost as if he's preparing the reader for greater things. I think just following his arguments is good practice in reasoning. When I took "Greek and Bible Values" in college they just covered the Theory of Forms and The Apology and that was about it. I think that's unfortunate, though; it seems to me to miss the point of Plato. He never presented ideas in isolation, but always brought them in to support larger arguments. But I guess in the context of the history of philosophy and Christianity, that's how people were influenced by Plato (using isolated ideas of his to support their own arguments).


sonrisa,

I LUV Plato's stories about Atlantis. They have value for this girl! The one that breaks off mid-sentence, I've always wondered what came next, & on occasion I would make up an ending.
Hmm, I haven't gotten to that one yet. What do you like about them? Atlantis is like another Utopia, isn't it? I like reading about dystopias myself, like 1984. Must be all that Stephen King I read when I was a teen. :)


Mental Gremlin,
You must understand the roots of Western thought and those roots are the greek philosophers.
I agree it's good to understand the roots, if you have the time!

[sneakyomen]

MGregory,
To address your question about the personality types of myths, I've read about it from the viewpoint of psychologists using the myths to describe personality types and helping people through their problems by pointing out where the mythical characters went wrong, where their weaknesses were etc. Some specifics are the Zeus is a ruling character who is a judge, a conquerer, seducer, creater etc. Athena is the counselor, teacher, guide, peacemaker. Prometheus is the humanist, defender of the weak, revolutionary, evangelist. The list of mythical characters and their personality types obviously goes on and on, but that's the basic idea of how specific personality traits can be found and by reading the stories you can see how their traits apply and what troubles or great things they come across.
Cheers.

[Thomas Knierim]

Matt: When I wanted to get serious about learning philosophy a couple of years ago, I wanted to read "Critique of Pure Reason". Well, although I've spent a lot of time reading computer books, I've never got into anything remotely literary, so it was completely over my head. I soon gave up and started reading about the book, and they say that you need to understand Hume before Kant, Berkeley before Hume, Descartes before Berkeley, medieval theology before Descartes, the list goes on.

I can relate to that.

Getting started in philosophy with Kant is like learnig to fly on 747 Jumbo Jet, or beginning to program in C++. Not exactly a lightweight. I read the German version of "Critique of Pure Reason" when I was 15 years old and I can recall my desparation with Kant's writing style. The language is very complex -even in German-, the subject matter is abstract, and let's be honest, Kant sucks as a writer. His writing style is academic and complicated, quite the opposite of Schopenhauer and Hume, both of whom were elegant writers. But then again, Kant was Prussian, maybe this explains the painstaking attention to detail. Despite the horrible language, I found the Critique of immense value. Once you see through the smokescreen of eightfold nested subordinate clauses, it becomes apparent that he is onto something unique. He dismantles the fabric of thought like no other before him. But you have to fight it out with Kant.

Matt: Well, I've discovered that the task I've undertaken is enormous. Very enormous. Yet it seems like most philosophers have done it and then read more on top of it like Dante, Goethe, Shakespeare, the list goes on. I can't help but wonder, how do they do it? There doesn't seem to be enough time in one lifetime.

As a matter of fact there isn't! There is no special reason to read all the original works, unless you are fanatic about it. Good secondary literature is crucial. Try Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy." The scope of thought, the depth, the clarity that Russell achieves is phenomenal. Or try "Die philosphische Hintertreppe" by Wilhelm Weischedel which gives you excellent, well-researched biographies and epitomes (perhaps there is an English translation).

Matt: I think Greek literature is probably the most stimulating stuff I've ever read. I think maybe because it is so open-ended and rubbishy, yet it presents the issues in such a raw form that it makes you want to fill in the blanks.

I agree. Perhaps the keyword is vibrancy. The Greek vigor of enquiry is intoxicating.

Cheers, Thomas

P.S.: I am also an IT consultant and I often wondered about the "applications" of philosophy. Well, I don't wonder anymore. The connection between IT and philosophy is clear to me.

[a random hack]

MG,
sneakyomen nailed it pretty well. :)
Better than I was going to, for sure! :lol:

I LUV Plato's stories about Atlantis. They have value for this girl! The one that breaks off mid-sentence, I've always wondered what came next, & on occasion I would make up an ending.

Just guessing, but would the ending be something like 'glubglubglub...'?

[rich]

That's good Random, or blub blub blub ~s ea~foam~bubbling

[sonrisa]

yeah, you're funny Random :lol:

u 2 richie :lol:

McGregory, get back to you when I got more time. Just surfing thru today

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by MGregory@Jul 16 2003, 04:57 PM

sonrisa,

I LUV Plato's stories about Atlantis. They have value for this girl!* The one that breaks off mid-sentence, I've always wondered what came next, & on occasion I would make up an ending.
Hmm, I haven't gotten to that one yet. What do you like about them? Atlantis is like another Utopia, isn't it? I like reading about dystopias myself, like 1984. Must be all that Stephen King I read when I was a teen. :)

Actually, I don't think Atlantis was a utopia. It sounds to me like Plato was writing about-from his place in time- a futuristic society. Because of their cultural/technological (for that time period) superiority, the Atlanteans were arrogant & proud, to use Plato's words, "they were full of avarice & unrighteous power"-hardly utopian-& this is why Zeus punishes them. We don't get to find out what the punishment is tho, becuz this is where the story breaks off- midsentence- just as Zeus is about to give the Atlanteans their comeuppance. I always figured he told the Atlanteans what a bunch of arrogant SOB's they were, then threw a couple thunderbolts at the island to sink it. The Atlanteans scrambled into their fancy boats & sailed off to other parts of the world, bringing their civilization with them.
The interesting thing about all this is that, according to Plato, Atlantis sank around 12,000 years ago, which is also around the same time the glaciers began receding from North America & Europe. I once saw a diagram from an article some climatologist wrote showing how a landmass in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean would prevent the Gulf Stream from moving thru the ocean & warming North America & Europe. Remove the landmass & Gulf Stream can do its thing. There's supposed to be the remains of an ancient city in the water off the coast of the Bahamas, like it sunk or something.
Plato claims he got his stories about Atlantis from Egyptian priests who claim to be descended from the Atlanteans. There are some similarities between the Egyptian & Mayan civilations. Then there's the matter of the Sumerians showing up in Mesopatamia, civilization in hand. These may just be coincidences. Or not. Plato claims his stories are true. Who knows, maybe they are. Or not. :)

[rich]

Greek Mythology, unfortunately I know nothing about, was never taught it when I went to school.

One time I thought that Atlanta was Atlantis, before a flood flooded them out. :wacko:

Also wonder if Atlantans of today have the same characteristics of Atlanteans of many years ago? true and really :wacko: :blink: :unsure:
:rolleyes:

[sylph]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Jul 18 2003, 10:34 PM
Once you see through the smokescreen of eightfold nested subordinate clauses...
:D

[vicente]

A recurring theme in this thread is that the roots of Western thought were founded on Greek Philosophy,...this includes Western religion, specifically Christianity. In other words, without Greek Philosophy and their obsession with Natural Numbers there would be no Christianity today. And without Christianity, the World would most asurredly be a kinder, gentler, more spiritually orientated World then it is.

However, the Greeks "1 based solutions" still thickly drapes the conscious of humanity. For a different view of Greek Philosophy try 'Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea', by Charles Seife.

Vicente
:)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by rich@Jul 27 2003, 12:19 AM
Greek Mythology, unfortunately I know nothing about, was never taught it when I went to school.

One time I thought that Atlanta was Atlantis, before a flood flooded them out. :wacko:

Also wonder if Atlantans of today have the same characteristics of Atlanteans of many years ago? true and really :wacko: :blink: :unsure:
:rolleyes:
Dunno about Atlantans Richie, but yeah, I'd say there's some in Washington that are full of avarice & unrighteous power. Way too full.

[a random hack]

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~loxias/odchoice.htm

Here's an amusingly greek link :)

[sonrisa]

Random, that link doesn't take you to the Plato page. Are you saying you have an oedipus complex or something?

[a random hack]

Plato page?

Are you saying you have an oedipus complex or something?

wasn't saying. :lol:

[sonrisa]

don't have to :lol: :P

[a random hack]

:P :D B)

[sonrisa]

:D :P :rolleyes:

[BeyondBeliefs]

As I recall, Athens was destroyed by Spartans before the birth of Christ.
Religions flourished in the Absense of Greek wisdom.

In a physical fight the 'dog' will always kill the 'Einstein' and have to spend the rest of its days living like a dog and not like a Human.

The wisdom of Greece was retained because there are still Humans living among us.
But the majority of two legged mammals can not use wisdom until they can rise above their animal upbringing. (Collie eat Shepard Education).

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Sep 17 2003, 11:39 PM
As I recall, Athens was destroyed by Spartans before the birth of Christ.
Religions flourished in the Absense of Greek wisdom.


They must of rebuilt it then. As far as I know Athens is still with us, with over a million strong...

As for the rest of your post, just goes to show it's a dog eat dog world out there...:D

[Polaris]

Religions flourished in the Absense of Greek wisdom.

Greeks? Aren't they the ones with all those Gods?

[sahyo]

In a physical fight the 'dog' will always kill the 'Einstein' and have to spend the rest of its days living like a dog and not like a Human.


no :)

[rich]

Yes. :P

[DavidS]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Sep 17 2003, 09:39 AM
In a physical fight the 'dog' will always kill the 'Einstein' and have to spend the rest of its days living like a dog and not like a Human.
In a physical fight, a dinosaur will (would) always kill a little fuzzy mammal too. But look at where the dinosaurs and love-their-kind mammals are now. The 'extinction' thang, which you mention on your bomb-in-paradise webpage, is a double-edged sword -- the BIG-developed-appetite 'critters' are the one's who don't make the (periodically) 'final' 'cut'.

I'll bet that 'nations' and 'corporations' will not make it this time around; if enough folks 'learn' the necessary 'lessons', maybe not even 'institutional' religious 'organizations' either. (Hey, it costs nothing - one can always hope!) The way I see it, lives-used-for-fodder and spilled guts notwithstanding, Humanness is a 'work'-in-progress (or 'play', as the case may be, depending on the 'frame' of one's perspective).

[BeyondBeliefs]

Greeks had lots of Gods
And we still do. Sme things take a long time to get over.

Good-bye Dinosaurs.
"Life" is a chance for things to exist here, but no guarentee.
One errant meteorite and good bye world. Until that day comes, we can't eat it and have it to.
We need more than just luck, if we are to keep the tools of nuclear termination out of the hands of the feuding borders and beliefs.

Attention Please:
If killing is used to determine what is worthy to survive on earth, then would the last Human alive please feed the cockroaches. Thank You.

Work in Progress
Plantation owners (corporations and their politicians) herding their uneducated, obedient, slaves.

But that's another thread.

[shifu]

Hack! IMO, this is where you should start so that you may contribute something substantial. :lol:

shifu

[a random hack]

:o like what?

[rich]

$ub$tancial Contribution= @ least a C- NOTE,

Preferably more like a K-NOTE. :lol: :D ;)

[shifu]

well! Socratic Philosophy, is i guess, orients us to the path of western philosophy.....thus, leads us to substantial agruments. :D

shifu

[sahyo]

thus, leads us to substantial agruments


goats butting heads?

[rich]

Goats butting heads?
Western Philosophy?
Meaningful Contibutions?
Eastern Philosophy?
Western Philosophy?

Tie all these together to make sense, then maybe you have a new topic. :P B)

[sahyo]

oh, topeekaboo

[a random hack]

topeekaboo
lolololol :lol: :D

well! Socratic Philosophy, is i guess, orients us to the path of western philosophy.....thus, leads us to substantial agruments.

you seem to have mistaken me for a Socratic Philosopher..... -_-

[rich]

If it comes down to











departure of















C A S H
from Hack's checkbook, that will be the cause of
A substantial argument. :lol: ;) :D

[sahyo]

:lol: hack
:D

[a random hack]

If it comes down to











departure of















C A S H
from Hack's checkbook, that will be the cause of
A substantial argument.

it will?
how you know that, rich?
:huh:

[shifu]

you seem to have mistaken me for a Socratic Philosopher..... <_<

Nope Hack, but you will be one soon......just keep the stimuli and faithfully abide on it. :D Or perhaps chant it as your mantra every morning. S-T-I-M-U-L-I....... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

shifu

[a random hack]

:lol: :lol:
have enough trouble getting out of bed in the morning, thanks ;)
got so bad, have to watch the news to wake me up and motivate me... :o

[shifu]

Oh! i see....Hack is getting old or getting bored.

No stimuli? :(

shifu

[a random hack]

oh, it comes and goes :)
no S-T-I-M-U-L-I..... :lol: :lol:

[rich]

Hack posted this: C A S H
from Hack's checkbook, that will be the cause of
A substantial argument.


it will?
how you know that, rich? :(


--------------------
perhaps... :)


I don't know. Guess that I guessed wrong. :) :unsure:

[sonrisa]

Isn't hack's checkbook rubber anyhow? :D

[a random hack]

lolol :D
don't mind getting moneys worth when i pay :)

[sonrisa]

Random Riting Rubber chex....

Rarely Raises eyebrows! :)

:P

[a random hack]

:wub: (closest thing i could find to 'kissy kissy' :D )

[sonrisa]

awwwww ain't that sweet!! :)

[a random hack]

lol, nup :D

[sonrisa]

:P

[sonrisa]

why ain't it sweet?

[a random hack]

cause i said so ;P

[shifu]

PROFOUND Stimuli B) :rolleyes: :huh:

shifu

[sonrisa]

yay-as, Random is so profound
:P

[a random hack]

:lol:

[shifu]

ey guys...just i thought from this inquisitive mind/brain of mine ;) have we learn a thing in here? Is it necessary to learn philosophy? Or how about making or dubbing a new field in philosophy.....the philosophy of stimuli? :lol: ey, lets light up our loads. Godspeed for the journey of life.

shifu

[Hellas-goldie]

Well, has it ever occured our minds that mythology may have roots in factual life?
Why was mythology a source of long-lasting inspiration and reference as well ,for the great philosophical minds of ancient times?
And something else for which I was always wondering about.
If you visit today's Greece you will see that most Greeks have their own philosophy and that we, the modern Greeks, usually use the word ''philosophy'' in a sarcastic way , especially when we want to emphasize the fact that everyone does and says what he/she wants because ''that's his philosophy''..
What I mean by that is that the term philosophy may have been overestimated over the centuries.What is it?Is there such a thing?Does it represent something as a term or it's something that ancient Greeks invented and used to cover something different ?

[sahyo]

kapsoura not think whether philosophy is or not ;)

[sahyo]

agapimenos
silenting sang

gliko mou moro
gliko mou louloudi
gilka filakia sta matakia sou

no thing :D



philosophy?
....where?

[Hellas-goldie]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 29 2003, 05:46 AM
kapsoura not think whether philosophy is or not ;)
This means what?

[sahyo]

Is there such a thing?

is philosophy"thing"?, when kapsoura
....does matter if is or not?

[rich]

asheera waits for david's dancing and deciphering kapsoura and stammering mistakes. :o

[rich]

kapsoura








IGNORING :ph34r: ;)

[Hellas-goldie]

Originally posted by rich@Nov 29 2003, 09:34 PM
kapsoura








IGNORING :ph34r: ;)
Do you really know the exact meaning of the word ''Kapsoura?'' :D
If you really do, I will be surprised because it's a totally greek word that can't be translated in any other laguage.
Besides it's greek slang.

Unless you are Greek.Are you?

[Hellas-goldie]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 29 2003, 06:47 AM
Is there such a thing?

is philosophy"thing"?, when kapsoura
....does matter if is or not?
well may be I don't know what philosophy is...do you?
if you do I would be very interested in your view , because you know ,I have a tragic suspicion.. everything in life is just ''views'' and nothing is real..and this explains a lot of things.

[rich]

I am not Greek, but think that the poster which identifies self as asheera is reidentifying self, again, by the name of kapsoura . ICBW, but that is what rich thinks. Hanging around in this forum makes one a little :wacko: ;)

[Hellas-goldie]

Originally posted by rich@Nov 30 2003, 01:05 AM
I am not Greek, but think that the poster which identifies self as asheera is reidentifying self, again, by the name of kapsoura . ICBW, but that is what rich thinks. Hanging around in this forum makes one a little :wacko: ;)
Let me (if you want of course) to explain what kapsoura is.First of all as I said before it's greek slang.Personally I don't like using this word :) .
It means that you are so passionately in love with someone that you can be burnt by the flames of your own love.Your love is so extreme that you would like to be humiliated for sake of it.
In greek we say '' oh, he is kapsouris with her'' meaning that he would thankfully would be an alive mat for her front door ,if she asked for it.. :D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Hellas-goldie@Nov 28 2003, 03:29 PM
What I mean by that is that the term philosophy may have been overestimated over the centuries. What is it? Is there such a thing? Does it represent something as a term or it's something that ancient Greeks invented and used to cover something different ?
Hi Golden Greek :lol:

According to Webster's Unabridged, which also 'traces' the meanings of words back to their Latin and/or Greek 'roots':

Philo- [from Gr. philos, loving] = a combining form meaning loving, liking, having a predilection for, as in philology [which, in turn, is listed as meaning: 1) originally, the love of learning and literature, the 'logy' referencing logos = 'word']

Philosophy = 1) originally, love of wisdom or knowledge.

Additional word-play: Whether one considers it's 'value' to be 'overestimated' or not (necessarily a 'subjective' assessment, IMO) some of what's going on here may be referenced, according to Webster's at least, as: philosophation (philosophical discussion), and those engaged in it may be said to be philosophating! :lol: Except those only 'pretending' to do so, who are philosophasters, in contrast to 'true' philosophaters, that is! :lol: :lol:

As far as mythology is concerned, I didn't look it up in in Websters (enough is enough, don't you think?), but my understand of myths is that they are image·in·natively in·vent·ed stories which reference 'truth' or truth-related 'dynamics' by way of allegory. Again, assigning 'truth-value' to any given 'mythical' invention is a 'subjective' matter, I think.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Hellas-goldie@Nov 29 2003, 10:59 AM
I have a tragic suspicion.. everything in life is just ''views'' and nothing is real..and this explains a lot of things.
Yes, all human ex·peer·ience may, I think, be quite validly considered to be a matter of personal (subjective) 'perception' (or 'views', IOW). But this doesn't necessarily imply that the human condition is 'tragic', HG; that is up for grabs, in terms of being a matter of personal interpretation, I think. For instance, there's lots of 'comedy' to be expeerienced and enjoyed in the process as well. As well as, on occasion at least, thangs like personally-desired 'value'-fulfillments and even, in some cases at least, totally unanticipated or un·pre·'figured', awesomely quality-of-personal-life 'transforming' understandings and ecstatically overwhelming aesthetic 'beauty' (as well as subject expeerience of their 'opposites', of course).

That such thangs are 'subjective' doesn't make them un'real', IMO -- such thangs really 'happen' to, or should I say 'in' the 'realm' of, living conscious-being(s).

In that regard, the 'kapsoura' thang strikes me as being quite a real 'blast' which ultimately becomes a real 'kicker'! That is , if one becomes 'kapsoura' in relation to something or someone 'specific'; the 'blast' ever-continues if one becomes 'kapsoura' with everything that's flow going on and whatever happens in the flow moment-to-moment, according to certain ec·static folks at least.
:lol:

[sahyo]

be burnt by the flames of your own love.
Your love is so extreme that you would like to be humiliated for sake of it.

when loving, is 'awho' left which can thinkfeel"humiliated"?

In greek we say '' oh, he is kapsouris with her'' meaning that he would thankfully would be an alive mat for her front door ,if she asked for it..

yeyyyyyyyyyy kapsouris

dancingkapsouradancingdancing

:D :D :D

[sahyo]

seed passion sprouts compassion, hellas :D

[sahyo]

the 'kapsoura' thang strikes me as being quite a real 'blast' which ultimately becomes a real 'kicker'! That is , if one becomes 'kapsoura' in relation to something or someone 'specific'; the 'blast' ever-continues if one becomes 'kapsoura' with everything that's flow going on and whatever happens in the flow moment-to-moment



B) B) B)

yes david, momentmoment

:D

[Hellas-goldie]

Originally posted by DavidS@Nov 30 2003, 03:27 AM
Philosophy = 1) originally, love of wisdom or knowledge.

.........and those engaged in it may be said to be philosophating! :lol: Except those only 'pretending' to do so, who are philosophasters, in contrast to 'true' philosophaters, that is! :lol: :lol:

......Again, assigning 'truth-value' to any given 'mythical' invention is a 'subjective' matter, I think.
I am quoting three points from your last message David(may I call you with your name?) and I am going to answer to these three points taking them one by one.

1st)My dictionaries here interprete the word philosophy as ''being friend to wisdom''..Same as yours..
This explanation does not satisfy me at all. I am rather difficult person :rolleyes: ..
This sounds nice and easy ..''friend to wisdom''..Which wisdom?Everyone has his own wisdom and this partially explains the so many branches of philosophy ..Conflicting branches, complicating branches,contrasting branches etc etc.I prefer viewing philosophy as the search for wisdom.

2nd) I am not sure but maybe you would be interested in knowing the word that we use for those pretending to discuss in philosophical terms.We call them ''ampelofilosophi'' and this means the false philosopher who all day is hidden in vines.. :D So dizzy by the smell of wine he says whatever comes to his head ,pretending though to be a great thinker.


3rd)Why do you say that ''assigning 'truth-value' to any given 'mythical' invention is a 'subjective' matter,''??What do you mean by ''subjective'' concerning a myth's truth?

[Hellas-goldie]

Originally posted by DavidS+Nov 30 2003, 03:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DavidS @ Nov 30 2003, 03:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Hellas-goldie@Nov 29 2003, 10:59 AM
I have a tragic* suspicion.. everything* in life is just* ''views'' and nothing is real..and this explains* a* lot* of things.

As well as, on occasion at least, thangs like That such thangs are 'subjective' doesn't make them un'real', IMO -- such thangs really 'happen' to, or should I say 'in' the 'realm' of, living conscious-being(s).

[/b][/quote]
I must say that I like very much your way of describing simple ideas through such an eloquent and beautifully expressed vocabulary.
I really do, because my English is not perfect(you see I am not english) and when I read english of such a good level is a real pleasure for me.

Now about the quote I made:
Whenever we see a dream or a nightmare the fact that we see it makes it real?

[sahyo]

because my English is not perfect(you see I am not english) and when I read english of such a good level is a real pleasure for me.

perhaps is a preference and not that hellas english isn't "perfect", since a friend living greece doesn't write english as well as hellas and doesn't think'feel' more or less pleasure 'how' english is written

:)

[Hellas-goldie]

Originally posted by asheera@Dec 1 2003, 04:40 AM
perhaps is a preference and not that hellas english isn't "perfect", since a friend living greece doesn't write english as well as hellas and doesn't think'feel' more or less pleasure 'how' english is written

:)
You are the one here perplexing me :rolleyes: ..with your riddles..

[Hellas-goldie]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 30 2003, 07:05 AM
when loving, is 'awho' left which can thinkfeel"humiliated"?


Is loving ''awho'' left??
No, I don't think so.. ''awho'' came , maybe. :D

[sahyo]

Your love is so extreme that you would like to be humiliated for sake of it.



when loving, is 'awho' left which can thinkfeel"humiliated"?




Is loving ''awho'' left??


:) rewording:
could think"humilated" when only 'loving'?


it's greek slang.


"slang"? notslang?....can separate?


No, I don't think so.. ''awho'' came , maybe. :D


hehehe

if read confusing ;) , wasn' t saying left'went'

is still 'awho' when only loving?

[DavidS]

HG: because my English is not perfect (you see I am not english) ... when I read english of such a good level is a real pleasure for me.

I am ½ English by birth (other ½ South Indian, i.e, Tamilian from Madras area) – grew up bilingual – so I had a head start on you, as far as 'english' is concerned, I guess. Also I've been doing 'it' - 'it' meaning the 'art' of spoken and written verbal communication, using 'english'-word paint - for a looong time, involving many 'moving' 'moments', now. I appreciate the appreciation – pleasure·ing feels good too!

asheera (from another post): yes david, momentmoment.

Yes! What a great word that is! The 'earth' 'moved' for me too, just then! :lol:

HG (quoting asheera): Is loving ''awho'' left??
HG: (answering asheera): No, I don't think so.. ''awho'' came, maybe.

LOL! Looks and feels like you're getting' good at 'it' too, HG! Amazing things 'happen' in the 'field' of one's ex·peer·ience when one relaxes and opens to possibilities! "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall ... not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith [or, in David-speak, "those things which he image·in·eth" ;) ] shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." (Mark 11:23-24)

HG: Whenever we see a dream or a nightmare the fact that we see it makes it real?

Yes. To 'get' the 'true' or 'full' significance of this, it is important that one understand the 'fact' that that, i.e., 'seeing', or 'perceiving', is what personal ex·peer·ience is really made of. Everything else, which is what most people 'think' of as 'objective' (i.e., really 'true') 'reality', is just a stage-prop which serves such 'higher' (in my view) purpose.

Note: if one thinks/sees that 'way' (meaning, if one thinks of and looks at things in terms of some image·in·ed 'objective' reality'), then one's own personal (subjective) ex·peer·ience will be that one's personal (subjective) ex·peer·ience is more or less 'irrelevant' in and to the grand scheme of things, which IMO, as implicit in the above JC quote, it is not! (Of course, strict and stern 'objectivists' would strongly disagree with this last 'point'.)
:lol:

[DavidS]

Hi all -

Am in the process of reading Care of the Soul by Thomas Moore, and wish to recommend it to anyone interested in 'deep' and 'multi-leveled' interpretations and applications of the 'messages' or 'visions' about the human condition contained in Greek Myths, interpretations as meaningful and fascinating as any I've heard or read. The book is FULL of this stuff.

Here's an excerpt of a piece, well into Moore's presentation and discussion of Narcissus, which I think may ring some bells. Just to clarify something which might otherise be confusing, Moore's belief and practice is to 'seek' (or facilitate the client's 'finding' of) the meaning of troublesome 'symptoms' -- always approaching them as 'indications' of legitimate (though they may be hidden, overlooked, repressed, neglected, etc. in terms of conscious awareness) aspects of the soul which 'require' attention for them to be 'attended to' and 'integrated' into the life-gestalt of one's being. They are not simply 'bad' things to be gotten rid off as quickly as possible, IOW.

Again, please note, the following is just part of the material dealing with his 'reading' of Narcissus (I refer you to the entire piece, Ch 3: Self-love and its Myth: Narcissus and Narcissism, for full context). I selected this piece (there are many other Greeek myths interestingly discussed) because its mention of things like sadism and masochism and a person's thoughts and feelings in relation to her art and her being an artist 'echoed' and, in a way, tie into some recent comments on the subjects here - among other things. :)

===========

Self-love

Narcissism is a condition in which a person does not love himself. This failure in love comes through as its opposite because the person tries so hard to find self-acceptance. The comlex reveals itself in the all-too-obvious effort and exaggeration. It's clear to all around that narcissism's love is shallow. We know instinctively that someone who talks about himself all the time must not have a very strong sense of self. To the individual caught up in this myth, the failure to find self-love is felt as a kind of masochism, and whenever masochism comes into play, a sadistic element is not far behind. The two attitudes are polar elements in a split power archetype.

The narcissist is clearly sadistic in his rejection of others and in his feelings of superiority. Masochism, on the other hand, appears with particular clarity in what I call "negative narcissism." Some people think they avoid narcissis by constantly judging and berating themselves. Even though this may look like the opposite of self-love, it is still narcissism: a focus, albeit negative, not on life and objects, but on self. The masochism may appear as a habit of self-criticism.

One time an artist was talking to me about her painting. She showed me samples of her work, and it seemed to me that she was very talented and could well devote her life to art. But as we talked, I notices that something in her attitude toward herself and her work interferred.

"I particularly like the realism without perpestive in your recent paintings," I said.

Oh, I don't know," she said, "I think it just shows that I haven't studied enough. You know, I always wanted to go to art school, but my faily could never afford to send me."

"How do you manage to make those colors look so harmonious and yet filled with contrast, all at the same time?" I asked, taken by her style.

"I'm not really trained in these things," she went on, with her concern about her background and pedigree.

Putting oneself down is narcissism in reerse. It robs the soul of its attachment to the world. This woman not only couldn't talk to trees -- in the myth talking to trees was a sign that Narcissus was getting somewhere -- she couldn't talk about her paintings. Here "self" got in the way. She wasn't attached to her work because of her overrriding concern with her image. I suspect that if she had an image of herself as an artist, and loved it, she would be able to forget about her inferior feelings about hereself and concentrate on her work. Soul always includes an element of attchement, but narsicissm, as we have seen from the myth, is the failure to make oneself available for attachment. In our narcissism, we are as if made of ivory -- beautiful, but also cold and hard.

Even thought they are opposites, many people seem to have difficulty distinguishing narcissim from a proper and necessary love of self. Therefore, the person confused about beint too hungry for praise holds back from the pleasure of achievement. He makes little of an obvious success or has difficulty accepting compliments and praise, thinking that in this way he will avoid the dreaded narcissism. False humility denies the ego the attention it craves, but the denial is itself narcissistic, since it is a negative focus on ego rather than on the pleasurable possibilities of life.

The healing of narcissism, the fulfillment of its symptomatic hunger, is achieved by giving the ego what it needs -- pleasure in accomplishment, acceptance, and some degree of recognition. Masochistic refusal of the ego's desire is no way to care for the soul. On the contrary, it is an ascetic bargaiin that buys a false sense of virtue at the cost of the soul's need. Motivated by thoughts of purity and self-control, a person can deny the ego all kinds of conforts, and yet narcissism may abound. Spiritual programs are filled with concerns for individual progress, acceptance by authorities, and the wish for sainthood or some other high position. An alternative approach is to hear the soul's complaint and give it love an attention where it most needs it, even where we are most suspicious.

The secret in healing narcissism is not to heal it at all, but to listen to it. Narcissism is a signal that the soul is not being loved sufficiently. The greater the narcissism, the less love is being given. This myth is extraordinarily subtle. Narcissus falls in love with his image, but he doen't know it is he that is loved. He discovers by his own experience tht he is lovable. Further, he loves himself as an object. In our age of personalism and subjectivity it is considered a sin to make a person into an object. Yet that is the only way to see ourselves objectively. We can examine the stuff of our lives and personalities as material separate from the "I." I am stuff. I am made up of things and qualities, an in loving these things I love myself.

One of the advantages of turning to alchemy, as Jung did, for insight into the soul is the view it offers of the self as made up of materials and their processes and qualities: salt, sulphur, iron, water; cold, warm; dry, most; cooking, simmering, stewing, boilng. We use some of these words in everyday spech to describe the condition of the soul. When we recognize the objective nature of the soul, so that we may love it without being caught in solipsistic self-absorption, we can love ourselves as Narcissus did, as Other. Even the ego can be experienced this way. We know our habits, our weaknesses, our strenghts, our quirks. Looking at them with interest and love does not have to be narcissistic. In fact, and awarenes of the qualities of soul -- the distance Narcissus feels from his love object -- may help transform narcissism into genuine love of self.

Narcissim, by the way, is not always the condition of person. Our buildings, a piece of art, a city's design, a highway, a movie, a law -- all these things can have a tinge or even a grand streak of narcissism in them. A narcissistic object is a thing that shows that it does not love itself. It's an odd thing to say, but a bulding may go overboard faluting itself when its essential form is sufficient and lovable in itself. To me, for example, the Empire State Building stands tall and self-assured, but many buildings in our cities insists too much on their individuality. They seem to want to stand apart. It is as if they feel inferior to the community of other buildings, and so they have to exaggerate themselves to be noticed. The Empire State Bulding loses not stature because buildings near it are taller and newer. It seems secure in its self-love.

The myth also teaches something else: that narcissism is a piece in a larger scheme of traonsformation. In the story, the scene shifts from woods to underworld, the character from human to flower, that is, from person to object. I see in this a movement away from human subjectivity and into nature. Narcissism heals itself away from loneliness into creation: in our narcissism we wound nature and make things that cannot be loved, but when our narcissism is transformed, the result is the love of self that engenders a sense of union with all of nature and things. you might say that we then have a shared narcissism, a mutual self-love, a kind of mystical consanguinity among all creatures. Not shying away from mysticism, we might say that symptomatic naricissism can only be healed when it becomes a genuine religious virtue. All human symptoms and problems, when they are taken to their depth and realized on a soulful way, find their ultimate solution in a religious sensibility.

Rainer Maria Rilke was the poet of this philosophy of transforming the veryday into the sacred, the visible into the invisible. In a famous letter of 1925 he writes, "Our task is to stamp this provisional, perishing earth into ourselves so deeply, so painfully and passionately, tht its being may rise again, 'invisibly,' in us." This reminds me of narcissus becoming the flower; nataure manifests itself through our human lives, and our personalities flower as acts of creation. In his Sonnets to Orheus Rilke again refers plainly to Narcissus:

Though the reflection in the pool
Often swims before our eyes:
Know the image.

Only in the dual realm
do voices become
eternal and mild.

The narcissist can be hard and cruel, even as he or she suffers harsh self-criticism. But when the "dual realm" is discovered and Narcissus lies at the pool in touch with his otherness, then the lasting, eternal, unperturbed depth provide gounding and confidence. They also take the sharp edge off narcissism's sadism, for there is mildness in the waters of self-discovery. As Narcissus we are no longer marblelike in our attempts at self-preservation; rather, we become more like the flower whose roots are deep and whose indulgent beauty is grounded, enjoying the honest humility of nature.

The trouble is that all too often our syptoms go unworked. Metamorphosis doesn't happen without our artful participation. This is the teaching of the Rennaissance magicians like Fionco and Pico della Mirandola, who wrote that we need to be the artists and poets of our own lives. Symptoms are transformed by imagination. If I hear a bit of nacissism shoout out of my mouth, I can take the clue and look for those places where I am not loving and tending my soul. The circumstances, the timing, and the particular language of my narcissism tells me exactly where to look and what to do. Oddly, I can be thankful for my narcissism, if I recognize it a such an hear within it the rumblings of myth. It contains the seeds of self-acceptance and a loving attachment to the broad world.

[sonrisa]

Earlier this month I was in Washington attending a conference on petropolitics, that is, how oil influences political policy. It was most interesting. One of the speakers there was saying that the invasion of Iraq, & the exploitation of its people & the plundering of its oil is a last ditch attempt by the oilmongers to maintain their grasp on power in a world that is looking for ways to wean itself from oil dependency. I have been ruminating on this, and have been thinking that, in such a light, Plato's stories about Atlantis could be construed as cautionary tales. The Atlanteans were a technologically superior society that exploited less advanced peoples & plundered their resources. They were, to use Plato's words "full of greed & unrighteous power". Sounds alot like the oilmongers of today. So I wonder, if we allow these oilmongers to continue to plunder & exploit to satisfy their greed & thirst for power, will our civilization go the way of Atlantis (http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis/story.html)?

[slayer]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Jan 23 2004, 07:55 PM
One of the speakers there was saying that the invasion of Iraq, & the exploitation of its people & the plundering of its oil is a last ditch attempt by the oilmongers to maintain their grasp on power in a world that is looking for ways to wean itself from oil dependency


Anti-Americanism is a symptom of the ideology of diversity and relativism. Sonrisa is a classic case.

Notice how she completely ignores the fact that Hussein has been flouting UN sanctions for over 9 years. Notice how she ignores the fact that he murdered thousands of Turks. Notice how she ignores the fact that he ordered his own people murdered on several occasions. Notice how she ignores the fact that he is a dictator systematically robbing the coffers of his country. Notice how she ignores the fact that he ordered the death of all non-Muslims in his country. All of these things, and there are more I omitted, does she ignore.

Of course ignoring them allows her to seek a reason for the War in Iraq elsewhere. Nevermind that there are numerous just reasons why we're there now, some of which I've listed above.

So, she reasons, our having access to Iraq's oil is a byproduct of our now occupying Iraq; therefore, this must be the reason why we're there! A ha!

Of course she neglects to mention -- although I'd just as soon believe that she doesn't know -- that already we've provided better banking systems, irrigation, food supplies, and overall economy, which, by the way, relies heavily on their oil assets.

A symptom of anti-Americanism: when offered the flimsiest of arguments against America, the anti-American mind will cling to this falsehood like it was her own baby. She'll feed the lie, promote the lie, and watch the lie grow, until one day the lie is able to walk on its own, that is, until the lie becomes public opinion.

Sonrisa, remove the lie from your teat, and you'll soon realize that you're nurturing a falsehood and the pleasure you've derived from promulgating this lie is really just the pleasure one derives from having her breast licked -- that is, you liked how it felt, so you called it true and good.

slayer

[a random hack]

so slayer,
being a good absolutist, may we expect you to support the removal of all leaders who kill their own people, or who steal from their countrymen, or order the killing of citizens of other countries, or who flout the UN?

want a list?

[slayer]

Sure, A Random Hack, give me the list.

Please try to keep the following distinctions in mind when you think of that list of leaders whom you think fit the Hussein bill: murdering one's citizens vs. one's citizens being killed, unjusty invading another country vs. justly invading another country, and 'ordering the systematic rape of Kuwaiti women vs. woman's suffrage.

I noticed that you intend to give me a list of leaders who have done this OR that OR this OR that criminal act, when of course Hussein didn't do this OR that, but he did this AND that AND this AND that. It's a small difference, but one many victims would appreciate you making before you equate other leaders with Hussein.

awaiting that list,

slayer

[a random hack]

maybe, in that case you would care to clarify the difference between killing and murder, and the cutoff point where crimes cease to be crimes :lol:

can't educate you :)

[slayer]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jan 28 2004, 10:54 PM
maybe, in that case you would care to clarify the difference between killing and murder, and the cutoff point where crimes cease to be crimes :lol:

can't educate you :)

You're right, you can't educate me. But I can educate you.

When someone shoots just because he doesn't like you and you die due to the wounds he has inflicted on you, he has murdered you.

When someone is shooting at you and you fire back in self-defense and that person dies due to the wounds you inflicted on him, then you've killed that person.

The difference between the two acts is that one is a justified killing and the other is an unjustified killing (that is, murder). If you look really really carefully you'll notice the words "just" and "unjust" embedded in two of the words I used to distinguish between killing and murdering.

To give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not as simple as your question might suggest, I'm going to believe that you're just being disingenuous about this rather basic difference. But what's disconcerting is that this trend of playing dumb about the most basic of concepts, e.g. the purpose of a hammer, 2 + 2 = 4, the difference between murder and killing, is just a ploy to hide behind very poorly supported opinions.

Let me add one disclaimer. I was editing my previous post, apparently, while you were responding to the original version. As you know, I wouldn't have been able to edit it if I had already received your response. Nevertheless, for anyone who cares to know, the content was basically the same.

I think I heard your 3 O'clock bell, Hack.

slayer

[sonrisa]

Yo Guyz!! Time out! As I already stated, the conference I attended had to do with the influence of oil on political policy & the speaker I referred to was speaking about the oil aspects of the Iraqi invasion. C'mon Slayer, what do you think Haliburton is doing over there, passing out CARE packages? Of course it's about oil. You are ignoring the fact that N (as in Nuclear) Korea has proudly proclaimed that it has WMD's & has been threatening to, um, show them off, so to speak, & like you, the bushits ignore them. Instead, they invade a country that has been weakened by the sanctions you mentioned, & whose WMD's have evidently been destroyed by the inspectors. Could it possibly be becuz N Korea has no oil & Iraq does? Hmmmm.

But I've digressed from what I wanted to say, which is, that the upshot of this workshop I attended was that these oilmongers are insisting upon hanging onto what is becoming a dying technology. This would be like, if, at the turn of the last century, the buggy makers & blacksmiths had banded together to prevent widespread usage of the automobile. For that matter, the automakers know needle's running on empty, that's why they are developing fuel cell cars, & cars that run on other technology. My personal fave is Chrysler's car that runs on a variant of borax (http://www.allpar.com/cars/concepts/natrium.html), but again, I digress. Energy companies are manufacturing solar panels & cornstoves (http://www.corngrill.com), to name a couple, to handle heating & power needs. My brother works for Dupont, & a good part of his job is to figure out ways to synthesize plastics so they don't have to be made with petroleum.

And in the midst of all this we have oilmongers insisting on keeping the world hooked on oil (& we have an oil jones the size of the Milky Way) to the point that they will invade countries (Iran's next, Slayer, if the oilmongers have their way) exploit the people there, & plunder their resources (read oil) to satify their greed & personal gain. They remind me of the greedy, selfish Atlanteans, & make me wonder if our civilization is going the way of Atlantis. I posted my question hoping to start a discussion in that vein.

Really Slayer, there's no need to post stale tired bushit popaganda bs here. We can get more than enough of that drivvel simply by turning on Faux News. :uhoh:

ps too bad you can't be educated. :( That is generally considered a sign of intelligent life, the ability to learn & be educated.

[slayer]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Jan 29 2004, 12:43 PM
(1) C'mon Slayer, what do you think Haliburton is doing over there, passing out CARE packages?

(2)* Of course it's about oil. You are ignoring the fact that N (as in Nuclear) Korea has proudly proclaimed that it has WMD's & has been threatening to, um, show them off, so to speak, & like you, the bushits ignore them. Instead, they invade a country that has been weakened by the sanctions you mentioned, & whose WMD's have evidently been destroyed by the inspectors. Could it possibly be becuz N Korea has no oil & Iraq does? Hmmmm.

(3)* But I've digressed from what I wanted to say, which is, that the upshot of this workshop I attended was that these oilmongers are insisting upon hanging onto what is becoming a dying technology.* .

(4)* And in the midst of all this we have oilmongers insisting on keeping the world hooked on oil (& we have an oil jones the size of the Milky Way) to the point that they will invade countries (Iran's next, Slayer, if the oilmongers have their way) exploit the people there, & plunder their resources (read oil) to satify their greed & personal gain.*

(5)* ps too bad you can't be educated. :( That is generally considered a sign of intelligent life, the ability to learn & be educated.


Sonrisa, the only things stale are your poor assumptions and easily influenced anti-American mind.

re (1): I wonder what could a company with expertise in oil be doing in a country which we are trying to financially rescue, especially when that country's greatest asset is oil, which, by the way, uses somewhat outdated technology? I don't know, to advise and make the system better? No wait, I guess our agriculturalists are there to rob their land. Our economists to rob their purses. Yeah, it all makes sense now.

re (2): Oh, wait! That's right, N. Korea has sanctions that it hasn't been honoring. Oh wait! N. Korea invaded Kuwait! Oh wait! N. Korea, along with India and Pakistan, are under international legal obligation not to produce nuclear weapons! That's right, I forgot.

re (3): Surprise! A company that produces oil desires that oil continue to be a product-in-demand. Next you'll tell me that the tire industry doesn't want non-deflatable tires to come out in the market! Of course the "oil mongers" want oil to be a continued necessity. They've always wanted this and always will, but that doesn't mean that they're there robbing Iraq. You offer no proof for anything you say. Oh, I forgot, "hmmm" is proof on this site.

re (4): Poor speculation. If the oil mongers have their way? That's right, you have acquired access to their sub rosa meetings about taking over the world and raping third world countries. Let me know when the Jews have taken over America, too, okay?

re (5): Are you illiterate or just dishonest? I said that Hack couldn't educate me. It doesn't follow that because he can't educate me that I can't be educated. Forgive me for using that logic talk, you know, "follow," but it's the only way I know how to reason. So, again, you're not only mistaken, you distort the facts.

If there aren't invisible, green gnomes on my palm right now, then how come you can't prove they're not there, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

slayer

[sonrisa]

ok, so what does any of that have to do with Plato &/or Atlantis?

[slayer]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Jan 29 2004, 03:51 PM
ok, so what does any of that have to do with Plato &/or Atlantis?


That's a very good question.

Of course I could ask that about your previous post, or about your post about the "oil mongers", but I take your point to be a good one.

Much of what gets posted seems to go way off of the topic question. Sometimes things will stray merely because two people get into a debate about a claim, and this debate will require that other premises be supported. That seems legitimate.

But even the posts that purport to address the topic question are usually off, and that's because most people can't give straight answers.

We can probably count the number of posts with any philosophical content on one hand.

I've received a few responses that really don't say anything, for example, Rich's "hmm" response. What am I supposed to respond to? I also rather enjoy the ones that attack me personally. I don't mind polemical replies (in fact, I enjoy them and submit them), but at least criticize something I've said first in order to give your ad hominen some substance.

Hey, if I say something idiotic, feel free to tell me why it's idiotic and then call me an idiot. I'll deserve it.

peas in your mouth getting all mushy,

slayer

[sahyo]

is slayer desiring idiotic strict adhering?

[fu*]

Slayer
Hey, if I say something idiotic, feel free to tell me why it's idiotic and then call me an idiot. I'll deserve it
.
"We can probably count the number of posts with any philosophical content on one hand.

peas in your mouth getting all mushy

the only things stale are your poor assumptions and easily influenced anti-American mind.

a company with expertise in oil be doing in a country which we are trying to financially rescue,

But if you talk this way, you'll only end up confusing yourself, which you obviously have done.

I can almost make sense of this, but I don't really bother with bad English anymore, unless you're a great mind, which I highly doubt.

I had to restrict myself to the above three snipets of stupidity because addressing more would take me into tomorrow.

It's not that your truth is right for you and my truth is right for me, it's that you're wrong.

This is stupidity par excellence.

One, I think my response will be quite convincing to anyone of even limited intelligence

A jedi desires not these things,

No, Rich, since you have no idea what a true philosopher would do, I'll inform you

"If you think I'm angry and judgemental, you'd be right"

Yes! And that makes you an idiot

F U

[slayer]

Originally posted by fu*@Jan 29 2004, 07:48 PM
"If you think I'm angry and judgemental, you'd be right"

Yes! And that makes you an idiot

F U

FU,

I'm going break down the three possibilities which you might have in mind for saying I'm an idiot, given the quote above.

(1) You think I'm an idiot for being angry.
(2) You think I'm an idiot for being judgmental.
(3) You think I'm an idiot for being angry and judgmental.

re (1): There is such a thing as being angry for good reason. So, let's say people actually read and believe the things you post, then that would be good reason to be angry, because you're an obscurantist proliferating your stupidities. I find that offensive and I get angry about such things. Justly so!

re (2): Judgment is how one attains knowledge, it's how we become critical beings. When the terrorists struck on 9/11, I judged them. When I read this post, I judged you an idiot, because everything you said was false. That was a difficult trick, I congratulate you on being consistently stupid.

re (3): Since there's nothing wrong with being angry at times and since being judgmental is a good quality, being both is also perfectly okay -- no, more than okay, laudable at times.

You posted a few quotes, but you said nothing in response to any of them. You offered nothing against the content of those claims. The reason is that you lack content. You can't formulate an orginal argument because you're so accustomed to accepting everything you are told and read. And the reason I'm so comfident about this being true, is because you're averse to judging.

judging bad, angry bad, fu smart,

slayer

[sahyo]

Hey, if I say something idiotic, feel free to tell me why it's idiotic and then call me an idiot. I'll deserve it

idiotic thought-"I"-"me"-slayer

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by slayer+Jan 29 2004, 07:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (slayer @ Jan 29 2004, 07:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--sonrisa@Jan 29 2004, 03:51 PM
ok, so what does any of that have to do with Plato &/or Atlantis?


That's a very good question.

Of course I could ask that about your previous post, or about your post about the "oil mongers", but I take your point to be a good one.

[/b][/quote]


OK dweeb-boy, let's review:

I attended a conference about how oil influences political policy. One of the workshops was about how oilmongers manipulate policy to keep this planet hooked on oil to satify their greed. Given that the oil will run out sometime during this century, this is a dead end technology & bad policy. It can't continue- & it won't becuz the oil will run out. But what the hey, as long as the oilmongers pockets are well lined...

This made me think about the Atlanteans & how they lost their civilization thru their greed & arrogance. I suggested that Plato's stories about Atlantis could be taken as cautionary tales (http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis/story.html) about what could happen to our own civilization if we don't kick the oil jones & develop oil substitutes.

Another workshop discussed how oil usage contributes to global warming. Global warming could actually trigger an ice age if it messes with the Gulf Stream (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/020104G.shtml). Atlanis sunk into the ocean, could North America plunge into an ice age, if we continue to pollute & don't develop energy sources that alleviate global warming?

In my posts I've been making comparisons between our situation today & to Atlantis. What part(s) don't you understand?

Or are you just illiterate, on top of being ignorant & obnoxius? Looks like you hit the trifecta there, Jethro! :)

[slayer]

Dear Sonrisa,

Being a philosophy guy, I was claiming, with regards to my rhetorical question, that talk of oil mongers and Atlanteans is irrelevant given the heading of this thread.

See, it's not that I'm illiterate or ignorant -- I'll take the fifth on obnoxious -- but that you've misunderstood the point I was making.

By the way, I won't wail to Thomas about your ad hominem just now. But notice how you weren't even right about why you thought I was illiterate and ignorant, though I was right in my assesment of your critical abilities. But I digress.

Of course I won't contest that you couldn't draw some correlations between Plato and Greeks and the Atlanteans. But what does Plato's philosophy or the Greek's philosophies have to do with anything you've written so far? Forgive me for thinking this the truly relevant question considering that the heading of this thread falls under Philosophy and, more specifically, Plato and Greek Philosophy. Feel free to consider my last an open question.

knot stoopid,

Jethro (otherwise known as slayer)

[sonrisa]

Well, well, you posted a civil answer for once. As you pointed out, this topic is Plato & Plato wrote about Atlantis, so.....

To be honest I couldn't say about the philosophical aspects unless it would be what can happen to too much of a good thing gone bad. I just always liked Plato's stories about Atlantis, even as a kid. Lately, I've been looking at them as cautionary tales, what can happen when people get too greedy. Seems to me there's just so much greed in this world today, & not just among oilmongers, that's just what got me thinking about it, the paralells between the greedy Atlanteans & the greedy parts of society today. I posted what I posted to see if anybody else thought the same way, but it looks like that ain't happening.

Now I see why people abandon these topics after awhile. Not that I'm complaining, mind you. Lord knows I've posted off topic, or piggy-backed on somebody else who posted off topic, plenty of times. But I can understand when you want to discuss something & the discussion turns around & takes on a life of it's own. Which actually can be rather interesting. The dude who started this topic hasn't been around for months. Ah well. Another topic then. :)

ps as for wailing to Thomas, about what, that I've been giving you back some of what you've been flinging around here? Hey, Thomas monitors these forums, he knows what I've been posting. If I didn't want him to know I wouldn't post it! :)

[slayer]

Originally posted by sonrisa@Feb 2 2004, 03:04 AM
ps as for wailing to Thomas, about what, that I've been giving you back some of what you've been flinging around here? Hey, Thomas monitors these forums, he knows what I've been posting. If I didn't want him to know I wouldn't post it! :)


Dear Sonrisa,

You seemed surprised by my civility, fair lady. Okay, "fair lady" is over-doing it.

I commented about you abusing me because Thomas has warned me about my "unacceptable" behavior. I wouldn't want you to get banned on account of me -- assuming that the warning wasn't just for my benefit. I fear the rest would miss you a lot more than they would me. Alas, I've never been popular.

I take the tone of your previous reply as a truce of sorts. I am going to be nice to everyone on this site from now on. In fact, everyone here is officially my best friend. I think it's not too much of a stretch to say that I love and respect you all.

Okay, sarcasm aside, whatever dispute we had about the relevancy of certain posts, it's over as far as I'm concerned. Of course that doesn't change the irrelevancy of the posts on here, but as far as talking about it is concerened -- I'm done with it.

And to prove that not only am I done talking about this "relevancy-rule", but to blatantly and hypocritically transgress this little rule, I'm writing you this very response.

Oh the irony!

slayer

[MGregory]

Hey Thomas,

Sorry, I took a philosophy break and forgot all about this conversation! Yes, you could say I'm a bit self-absorbed. I haven't read any Greek philosophy since then, although I still admire the Greeks.

Getting started in philosophy with Kant is like learnig to fly on 747 Jumbo Jet, or beginning to program in C++. Not exactly a lightweight. I read the German version of "Critique of Pure Reason" when I was 15 years old and I can recall my desparation with Kant's writing style. The language is very complex -even in German-, the subject matter is abstract, and let's be honest, Kant sucks as a writer. His writing style is academic and complicated, quite the opposite of Schopenhauer and Hume, both of whom were elegant writers. But then again, Kant was Prussian, maybe this explains the painstaking attention to detail. Despite the horrible language, I found the Critique of immense value. Once you see through the smokescreen of eightfold nested subordinate clauses, it becomes apparent that he is onto something unique. He dismantles the fabric of thought like no other before him. But you have to fight it out with Kant.
Wow you read it at 15? I doubt I'd even heard of Kant at 15. I was too busy terrorizing the neighborhood and getting in trouble back then. Yeah, I don't know if I'll ever be able to read it. My reading comprehension pretty much sucks, and my patience for it is lacking, although that is slowly getting better. My mind isn't very disciplined and I tend to get wrapped up in my own thoughts.

There is no special reason to read all the original works, unless you are fanatic about it. Good secondary literature is crucial. Try Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy." The scope of thought, the depth, the clarity that Russell achieves is phenomenal.
I actually have this book, but my problem is that when I start reading it, it makes me want to know more, so I'll break out the Plato's Collected Dialogues again, which reminds me I still need to finish my History of Greek Philosophy, so it's a never ending struggle. My problem is that I want to know everything, so I end up learning nothing, or at best very little :-) Nietzsche once said something like total abstinence is easier than using moderation, which has been my experience as well, so that's what I end up doing. As you probably know, my primary interest is enlightenment, so that's what I generally strive towards. I agree that Russell did an excellent job on the book, at least from what I've read so far. He was certainly very knowledgeable.

Perhaps the keyword is vibrancy. The Greek vigor of enquiry is intoxicating.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I like to get drunk off the Greeks and then read something completely different for awhile, like a Buddhist sutra or Nietzsche or something. I don't know if it helps, but it does put things into different perspectives.

P.S.: I am also an IT consultant and I often wondered about the "applications" of philosophy. Well, I don't wonder anymore. The connection between IT and philosophy is clear to me.
I used to think computer programming was very philosophical, but as I approach the outer limits of my programming and philosophical abilities, I'm not so sure anymore. I think every science in it's immature stages has everybody wondering. Everyone is drooling with creativity at the unknowns of the potential. The philosophical juices are flowing. People are wondering how all this power can be restricted to ethical pursuits, for example. But as the limits of it start to betray themselves, the cost becomes apparent and the grandeur of it all becomes smaller and smaller. I think we've basically reached the end of the golden age of computers. Even the open source movement is starting to decline and I think it will eventually be a pastime for a relatively small niche.

[sonrisa]

Wow you read it at 15? I doubt I'd even heard of Kant at 15. I was too busy terrorizing the neighborhood and getting in topule back then.

:D

reminds me of a trip I took to Nicarauga several years ago to visit a friend who lives there. The teenage girls in her neighborhood all were able to carry on intelligent discussions about Nicaraugan (then) current events, give informed opinions, etc... & it just boggled my mind. When I was their age my head was full of boys!

But, your high school didn't teach Kant in math (non-Euclidean geometry) or science (the origins of the universe)? That's where I first learned of him. Didn't find out about his other works til much later.

ps hope you enjoyed your b'day! :)

[a random hack]

re (2): Judgment is how one attains knowledge, it's how we become critical beings. When the terrorists struck on 9/11, I judged them. When I read this post, I judged you an idiot, because everything you said was false. That was a difficult trick, I congratulate you on being consistently stupid.


slayer, how do you learn if you judge people as idiots? are those people you judge as wise, those who you agree with, (or those who agree with you, depending on your level of egotism :lol: )? where's the room to learn in that situation?

[MGregory]

reminds me of a trip I took to Nicarauga several years ago to visit a friend who lives there. The teenage girls in her neighborhood all were able to carry on intelligent discussions about Nicaraugan (then) current events, give informed opinions, etc... & it just boggled my mind. When I was their age my head was full of boys!
Yeah, I wasn't much into current events, either. I was pretty busy trying to cope with reality. The environments I grew up in weren't very intellectual to begin with. I thought about girls a lot, but I could never figure it out.


But, your high school didn't teach Kant in math (non-Euclidean geometry) or science (the origins of the universe)? That's where I first learned of him. Didn't find out about his other works til much later.
Are you sure it's Kant you're thinking of? Kant was pretty much into morality and metaphysics as far as I know. I don't think I heard of him until I took an introductory philosophy class in college. I did somehow manage to get as far as calculus in high school, but I never learned about non-Euclidean geometry. I was a Christian in high school, pretty much, but I do remember believing in the Big Bang.


ps hope you enjoyed your b'day! :)
Thanks! I try to enjoy every day. :-)

[slayer]

Originally posted by a random hack@Feb 24 2004, 10:05 PM
re (2): Judgment is how one attains knowledge, it's how we become critical beings.


slayer, how do you learn if you judge people as idiots? are those people you judge as wise, those who you agree with, (or those who agree with you, depending on your level of egotism :lol: )? where's the room to learn in that situation?

Oh Hack,

I'm so glad that I caught this post of yours.

First, I have never said that I judge all people idiots. So right away your question ("slayer, how do you learn if you judge people as idiots?") seems misdirected, if not intentionally misleading of the facts.

At best you're misrepresenting something I've said. Perhaps I've said that I find that people are idiots. Uhm, feel free to take the following reading of that claim: I find a great many (or most) people to be idiots. Of course you want to hold me to a literal reading, so you can state your rhetorical question.

But, having said all this, tell me where I claimed that I find people idiots. I'm not recalling where, I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. Of course I doubt you'll produce that quote, as you never produced that list of leaders who were as criminal as Hussein.

If you're not equivocating, then your question (if it is question) is simply trivial. And here's the trivial answer: I learn from those I judge non-idiots.

Please, help me with a little research, which is purely for my own benefit. What effect is the smiley/laughing face suppose to add to your argument?

thanks,

slayer

[Thomas Knierim]

MGregory: My reading comprehension pretty much sucks, and my patience for it is lacking, although that is slowly getting better. My mind isn't very disciplined and I tend to get wrapped up in my own thoughts.

To a certain degree I think this is normal when you read scientific or philosophical texts. For myself I'd say it depends on the material. Some texts are vivid and and inspiring, or otherwise easily digestable, others are dry and boring. If the material is uninspiring, then it's usually not worth the effort. You will almost always find something better on the topic on your next trip to the library (or to Amazon these days). In some cases, however, there's no alternative. Either the material is unique or you are required to read it. For example, my first semester Linear Algebra book falls into the latter category. It found it 'repulsively uninspiring' and I had to read from cover to cover. When the going gets tough, I think that 'divide and conquer' is the best solution. You slice it into small packets and allocate a definite amount of time, say one hour, to get done with a packet. You set up a daily routine. That way you can read anything.

Not that the usefulness of this method exhausts itself in Linear Algebra books. I happen to read almost everything incrementally. A few pages after breakfast, a few pages during lunch break, a few pages on the train, a few pages in the evening. I also tend to read more than one book at the same time in alternating sequence and Internet papers in between. That way I avoid getting tired or loosing interest in a certain topic. I'm not saying this is the only way to read S&P texts. It works for me though.

MGregory: I actually have this book, but my problem is that when I start reading it, it makes me want to know more, so I'll break out the Plato's Collected Dialogues again, which reminds me I still need to finish my History of Greek Philosophy, so it's a never ending struggle.

Yeah, the old depth vs. breadth problem - there is really no solution to it. I solve this by restricting depth-enhancing searches to the Internet. Let's say I am reading Russell's "History of Western Philosophy", which favors breadth over depth, and I want to know about the Spartan wars, I would just look it up on the Net or on a digitized encyclopedia. - It is much faster.- Unfortunately, when searching the Internet, there is always the temptation to spin off branches and follow links to secondary or even unrelated topics. You want to look up 'quantum electrodynamics' and end up ordering a new CD on an e-commerce site. C'est la vie.

MGregory: I like to get drunk off the Greeks and then read something completely different for awhile, like a Buddhist sutra or Nietzsche or something. I don't know if it helps, but it does put things into different perspectives.

Exactly. Changing perspectives enhances understanding.

MGregory: I used to think computer programming was very philosophical, but as I approach the outer limits of my programming and philosophical abilities, I'm not so sure anymore.

Philosophy is about seeing the "grand connections" and theorizing about them. Computer programming is a bit similar; at least the field of system analysis and design is. In both cases -computers and philosophy- you build symbolic representations of the real world (data structures) and create programs or theories that apply to a certain class of problems (algorithms). That's why system analysis and philosophizing are intellectually similar tasks. I guess this might explain why you see so many CS people on philosophy boards these days.

What limits do you see yourself reaching?

MGregory: I think we've basically reached the end of the golden age of computers.

I guess that means you're not betting on AI!?

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by MGregory@Feb 24 2004, 11:27 PM

But, your high school didn't teach Kant in math (non-Euclidean geometry) or science (the origins of the universe)? That's where I first learned of him. Didn't find out about his other works til much later.
Are you sure it's Kant you're thinking of? Kant was pretty much into morality and metaphysics as far as I know. I don't think I heard of him until I took an introductory philosophy class in college. I did somehow manage to get as far as calculus in high school, but I never learned about non-Euclidean geometry. I was a Christian in high school, pretty much, but I do remember believing in the Big Bang.




yep, it's the same Immanuel Kant. Back in the 18th century those dudes dabbled in everything. On our side of the pond we had Benjamin Franklin & Thomas Jefferson. If I remember correctly, Kant theorized an eternal (uncreated) universe. His theory was one of a number of theories that were floating about prior to the Big Bang. The thing that struck me about the geometry was that Kant proposed a number of non-Euclidic theorums, but if non-Euclidic space would ever turn out to exist, then Kant would be wrong. I never paid Kant too much attention becuz I figured if he was wrong about the universe & wrong about geometry then why were we learning about him. It was years later, when I got interested in metaphysics, that I rediscovered him & the other stuff he was into.

[a random hack]

well slayer,
you answered my question, so i guess i better do the same...
so here goes :D

:lol: means i was laughing :)

[sonrisa]

Random!! :D

where ya bin matey? :holiday:

[slayer]

Originally posted by a random hack@Feb 27 2004, 12:54 AM
well slayer,
you answered my question, so i guess i better do the same...
so here goes :D

:lol: means i was laughing :)


Random Answers,

I asked what effect your smiley face added to your argument, not what the smiley face meant or was supposed to indicate, so you didn't answer my question.

Then, again, I already knew the answer: Nothing!

Thanks for playing 'Try to Answer a Simple Question'; there'll be consolation prizes handed out at the door.

Magister Ludi,

slayer

[a random hack]

:D :lol:

[sonrisa]

Random, try this one-

:goodlaugh:

or this-

:goodlaugh: :chairdrop:

[MGregory]

MGregory: My reading comprehension pretty much sucks, and my patience for it is lacking, although that is slowly getting better. My mind isn't very disciplined and I tend to get wrapped up in my own thoughts.

Thomas: To a certain degree I think this is normal when you read scientific or philosophical texts. For myself I'd say it depends on the material. Some texts are vivid and and inspiring, or otherwise easily digestable, others are dry and boring. If the material is uninspiring, then it's usually not worth the effort. You will almost always find something better on the topic on your next trip to the library (or to Amazon these days). In some cases, however, there's no alternative. Either the material is unique or you are required to read it. For example, my first semester Linear AlgebraYuk! That was a sour note. I hate linear algebra and I frequently run into situations where I wish I had learned it.

book falls into the latter category. It found it 'repulsively uninspiring' and I had to read from cover to cover. When the going gets tough, I think that 'divide and conquer' is the best solution. You slice it into small packets and allocate a definite amount of time, say one hour, to get done with a packet. You set up a daily routine. That way you can read anything.Yes, I think I'm slowly warming up to the idea. They say that's a better way to do it anyway because for any study session, the things that we tend to remember are the first and last things studied. It kind of forms an inverse bell curve, where the things in the middle of the session are remembered least, so they (educators, I guess) say that short sessions are more productive. I assume they're talking about studying something that's equally uninspiring throughout :-)

Not that the usefulness of this method exhausts itself in Linear Algebra books. I happen to read almost everything incrementally. A few pages after breakfast, a few pages during lunch break, a few pages on the train, a few pages in the evening. I also tend to read more than one book at the same time in alternating sequence and Internet papers in between. That way I avoid getting tired or loosing interest in a certain topic. I'm not saying this is the only way to read S&P texts. It works for me though.I've been experimenting for the past few years and I think you're right that that is the best way to go. I have a few different reading modes, but if I read a passage of something that I think is philosophically significant, I will read it a couple of times and think about it for awhile, about what exactly was said, if it makes logical sense, I'll try to attack it and find holes in it, I may memorize it if it's tricky, etc. I find it really productive, it just slows my reading down considerably. Just thought I'd share that :-) I'm still stuck on Kant's ideas on space :-)

Yeah, the old depth vs. breadth problem - there is really no solution to it. I solve this by restricting depth-enhancing searches to the Internet. Let's say I am reading Russell's "History of Western Philosophy", which favors breadth over depth, and I want to know about the Spartan wars, I would just look it up on the Net or on a digitized encyclopedia. - It is much faster.- Unfortunately, when searching the Internet, there is always the temptation to spin off branches and follow links to secondary or even unrelated topics. You want to look up 'quantum electrodynamics' and end up ordering a new CD on an e-commerce site. C'est la vie.I don't use the internet much for that, unless it's computer related, in which case it seems there's more on the net than there is in books, especially with Usenet. I don't think I've ever failed to find an answer to a programming dilemma on the net. Admin problems are pretty much pot luck. After doing it for a few years, I can honestly say I hate systems adminstration. I'd rather bag groceries. :-)

My deal is, a few years ago, I had maybe 20 philosophy books that I managed to read somehow, and one day I realized that if I actually own a book, I will eventually read it, even if I don't read it immediately after buying it. So, off I went on shopping spree after shopping spree. For close to a year, all I did was research books and buy books. If I couldn't find it in a local bookshop and amazon didn't have them (amazingly enough, they don't have everything!) I would order them from the publisher directly or buy them used. So, my library is pretty impressive now. Well, insane really. I must have over 150 works of philosophy and literature in my closet. So I don't research on the internet very much anymore :-) I must admit, though, it's nice to have a decent library and I don't regret having it. I'm probably learning more now than I ever have in school. Well, that was always true for me :-)

Philosophy is about seeing the "grand connections" and theorizing about them. Computer programming is a bit similar; at least the field of system analysis and design is. In both cases -computers and philosophy- you build symbolic representations of the real world (data structures) and create programs or theories that apply to a certain class of problems (algorithms). That's why system analysis and philosophizing are intellectually similar tasks. I guess this might explain why you see so many CS people on philosophy boards these days.Yeah, I agree with that. But I'm beginning to think that philosophy is just everywhere. Maybe it's me, but everything looks philosophical to me. I think a lot of CS people are on philosophy boards because computer people tend to use the internet more than other people. I could be wrong, though. Eric S. Raymond's essay on hackers says that hackers tend to like Zen, so maybe there is some truth to that. I think system design is just an intellectually brutal thing to do to one's brain and it makes philosophy look like poetry :-D

What limits do you see yourself reaching?As a programmer, I'm pretty much a hobbyist. I've been programming since I was 10, so it's a relaxing thing for me. I've written a lot of programs, but they're all little things. There's definitely a limit to the size of the system I can deal with. For one thing, I'm a total perfectionist. I will refactor a program every time I see a design flaw, so I will spend a whole day getting the functionality back to where it was for the sake of a little conceptual consistency or something. I just take a really artistic mindset when I program, like a sculptor or something. My last attempt at a large program was a diagramming program, which currently has about 12 modules. I can draw boxes with text in them and select them and move them with the mouse. I figured if I implemented saving, it would save me a lot of testing time, so I started on that and went off on a tangent to write a library that would serialize any structure as XML using a concise description with a series of structure arrays, and I just got swamped in the complexity of trying to make it generic so I took a break and never got back into it. It went well until I got to the question of structures with variable-length arrays, since there's no way to know how large the array is without the actual data, so a static description turned out to be insufficient for that, and to create a workaround would be so complex it would defeat the purpose of the whole thing. Things like that just piss me off :-D That's why I hate systems analysis and design.

MGregory: I think we've basically reached the end of the golden age of computers.

I guess that means you're not betting on AI!?Well, I don't think it will happen in a huge boom like the internet. It will definitely be a slow process since it's already 50+ years in the making, and they haven't shown very much progress yet. Plus, I'm not convinced that they know what 'intelligence' really means. I'm not real up on my AI so I can't remember what the judge's criteria is supposed to be, but if the Turing Test is considered valid, then they found it in the 60's when the Eliza program came out. I guess there were quite a few people who thought they were talking to an intelligent psychoanalytic machine!

[MGregory]

sonrisa: yep, it's the same Immanuel Kant. Back in the 18th century those dudes dabbled in everything. On our side of the pond we had Benjamin Franklin & Thomas Jefferson. If I remember correctly, Kant theorized an eternal (uncreated) universe. His theory was one of a number of theories that were floating about prior to the Big Bang. The thing that struck me about the geometry was that Kant proposed a number of non-Euclidic theorums, but if non-Euclidic space would ever turn out to exist, then Kant would be wrong. I never paid Kant too much attention becuz I figured if he was wrong about the universe & wrong about geometry then why were we learning about him. It was years later, when I got interested in metaphysics, that I rediscovered him & the other stuff he was into.Well, I recently started reading his Critique of Pure Reason (I'm going to read that damn thing!), and the first argument he presents is an argument about space, so I have to believe you. But non-Euclidic space definitely exists, doesn't it? One example is doing geometry on the surface of a sphere, I think, so lines would actually be finite. I think there are other kinds of non-Euclidic space, too. I could be wrong about all this.

[sonrisa]

Funny you should ask those questions (& the answers depend upon which theorist you put the questions to) since I'm currently reading something about 10-d space & calabi-yau manifolds. And I will read that damn thing too!

As a rule of thumb- & this is my own opinion, mind you, based on high school classes in non-Eucldean geometry & augmented over the years by reading books & magazine articles loosely associated with the subject- I would say that when you talk about higher dimensions, those other than the 4 we live in (time, length, width, & depth) then you are talking about non-Euclidean space. on the other hand, the space we live in may be non-Euclidean, if it is curved (spherical) as some theorists believe.