I'm not questioning the freedom of your actions and inaction. I was questioning the morality behind them.

Nobody has mentioned about not reading. The keyword here is "excessive", and you have done so, in reference to your vigilant, almost ritualistic way to cite someone else's quotes. And if you have read my previous post, it is an established fact that everyone gets their ideas from the inspiration of other existing sources, and the part when reading is definitely involved.

It is your personality. You lack extempore in your reactions towards philosophy, which is important, because the ones whim the original ideas whom you have cited from are doing exactly just that, and the coincidence for the similarity of their ideas is that most of these are just common sense, except that people did not have the right experience and words to express them, or worse, people simply do not talk about what they think about...at most times.

I did started by building sand castles. You on the other hand, decided to skip right ahead by reading works of those who has completed an actual building. The difference between you and me? You revere yours as superior than mine, while failing to understand that the sand castle has a valuable meaning of its own. I, on the other hand, commend you for actually reading to construct a building, except that is all you are concerned with, without ever understanding why would anyone build sand castles when you can build much "better/superior" things.

You are not bad at writing. Probably just didn't have a firm ground to stand on. If where you are standing is shaky, you find another ground to stand on. You DO NOT stop standing.

---

Added on December 30, 2012, 9:09 amLol. What if I told you that I have to rely on only two things that makes sense to me:

1) Common sense.
2) Honesty, not just in words, but in actions.

Too broad? Perhaps. Is that a bad thing? To an academic, perhaps, due to the lack of details, but if you people prefer a more elaborated version, it simply means that you are merely seeking for instant gratification for your ideas by looking at visible things to confirm their existence, hence the moral systems you have highlighted.

Read them if you must, but eventually depending on words to prove the existence of those ideas are...not practical. Live with those ideas, and let me see through them through your personality, or better, through your actions.

Philosophy is the love for wisdom. Not the love for the words from those who love wisdom. That's like admiring a good romance movie, but never truly fall in love by yourself.

Get that right, folks. Stop loving philosophy VICARIOUSLY.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Dec 30 2012, 09:13 AM

If providing a middle finger beats a useless one-liner like yours, I will do it.

Yes, Dreamer. I know, that I know, that I don't know. But if you know, do let me know, so I'll know what you know, and what you do not know, and so will you, to me.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Dec 31 2012, 08:31 AM

If you have read carefully and understand, not only did I have professed and acknowledge that I indeed know nothing, and intend to seek in response, I have also CHOSE to be AMBIVALENT, unlike your claims that I am merely being biased. That is of course, until you point them out, and I already knew which one will they be, and I have already prepared the answers for them.

And I am indeed blind, if that satisfies your inquiry. And I understand that no matter how I attempt to understand redness, it will not be the same as actually seeing the colour. Except that there is a twist:

I proceed with the attempt.

If there is nihilism involved, I will avoid reading it. I am sorry, and no offense. It is the only philosophy I have bias against. It may sound like an insult to you, but to be desire-less is, IRONICALLY desire itself, or more accurately, a desire to achieve nothingness because "something-ness" has its risks of sufferings. I am absolutely taken aback when similar philosophies like these regard desire as something to be discarded only for the mere reason that it will inevitably lead to suffering, instead of also addressing the joy, happiness, victory, and glory that also can be achieved via the existence and the path of having desires.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jan 2 2013, 03:59 AM

To transcend duality? Only if that is true. If you're saying that this transcendence is about understanding and accepting the existence of both results of desires: pleasure and suffering at the same time, yes, I believe in it, and as a matter of fact most philosophies and wisdom in life expects you to prepare your life for it.

However, if it keeps defining this "self-transcendence" as a form of "escapism" from desire itself, then I'm sorry. That isn't ZEN. That's just a coward's way of living by attempting to escape from the existence of reality.

And to respond to your other query:

I am BLIND, and DO NOT UNDERSTAND how and what the colour red is, although I have heard of it.

There you go again. When I say "excessive", you accuse me of using the word "minimal".

When I say "read, and experience philosophy", you accuse me of saying, "read, and corrupt curiosity".

And yet when you accuse of being an empty vessel, you have provided no holes in my thoughts whatsoever, and never even attempted to rebuke me civilly. Instead, you have resorted to irrelevant ad hominem, hoping to invalidate my life by claiming, "if he is not a happy person, therefore his ways must be wrong".

Do you see how many assumptions you have attempted on me without actually knowing who I am? Do you see how it is YOU, are the one who is the stubborn one here?

Allow me to rephrase, so that you, and everyone can understand.

Do not merely love something at a VICARIOUS level. Especially with philosophy. And if that requires you to merely stop reading, by all means, that it is how it must be.

But of course, to be fair, should you find your VICARIOUS love for philosophy is more correct than mine, then for goodness sake, explain it. Don't just go, "Haha, I laugh at you man. You don't know anything one. You never read one hor. That's just shows how insecure you are.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jan 8 2013, 01:35 AM

Ever attempt to read about a fight, but never been in a fight before to truly understand it?

Ever attempt to read about heroes, but have never attempt to be one to truly understand it?

Ever read about all about a place, but never dared to explore it to truly understand it?

Ever watch a romantic film and cried, but never ever attempt to immerse yourself into that experience?

Ever knew about about how much you have read, but is yet surprised by what people can do without doing the same?

Ever understood how it felt like to put your feet into the mud, instead of reading, watching, and hearing all about it?

I can go on, but you get the idea.

Most importantly, it is extemporaneous. I believe in the quotes I have read, but I do not believe citing about them...without ever understanding how philosophers ever came up with these quotes and ideas in the first place.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jan 8 2013, 02:17 AM

Pfft. Please. You better convince me that you're not just being sarcastic.

Try to understand this.

I will never, ever know how to give you an answer if you ask me for directions, but I'm sure as hell that I can escort you there.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jan 8 2013, 02:28 AM

If you prefer one to utter the word "existentialism" instead of "common sense", then you are asking me to hand over my consciousness to you in form of a package. I'm sorry, but I do not have a package. If you are able to find one, then please tell me what that may be. Hence deadlock-ism is not a package I have pioneered, but merely something you thought out of thin air, because you are simply incapable to grasp something unless it is presented to you in a form of a package made out of a "school of thought".

Whoops. Does that means I'm not telling people to NOT pursue philosophy in education? Not so.

If you love quotes, there is one from my memory that I can use at my disposal, although I try to avoid using them:

"I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand."

Confucius.

So if you were to ask me, what is your school of thought?

A few years ago, I have one, but after countless contemplation over other philosophies, I think I may not have one. Call me...an agnostic in philosophy if you must, but I find associating oneself to a specific philosophy is...limiting.

Nevertheless, if you find what I have said to be questionable, why not quote that specific post, and ask me about it? I'll do my best to explain it.

For the sake of reducing the tension, I suppose I could share this video. It is irrelevant to what we are talking about, but it's a good video:



This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jan 8 2013, 03:38 AM

Which is why I always avoid citing them, unlike you. Hence, my entire explanation to you on how EXPERIENCES are ALSO important, possibly even more than just reading.

Except that it is common sense to know being platonic is equivalent to being merely as deep as the surface, i.e. SHALLOW.

If your definition of platonic knowledge = universal, deep understanding = ?

Tautologies? Only if you regard all them as the same. You may be telling me that was because of the similar meaning conveyed with all those questions, but all of those questions are different REAL-LIFE scenarios that took place in one's moment of contemplation.

Which is why I did not tell you what ZEN really is. Instead, if you have read carefully, I have provided two different possible definitions of the duality issue, and which includes an agreement to your explanation of the duality of desire.

You have selectively chose to comment on the second possible definition, and conveniently avoided the first.

And here's my take/variation on your ZEN 101:

"Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor looks at him, smiled, and takes the entire kettle of tea, and pours it all over the ground nearby.

The Japanese master asked, "Why would you throw and waste it all away?"

And the professor replies, "For only you will limit yourself to a cup, than the nature of the universe. You see, Zen master. The cup isn't me. It's YOU. And the ground, is the how big the cup can be."


ROFL!

My goodness. Although I couldn't fathom how you would assume that I, perhaps from an alternate universe, will define a "couple" as "four or five". While you may be right about the importance of precision in language, your example which is geared towards me is so badly done, that you obviously did not understand that Critical_Fallacy's example of how "a few" is more subjective than "a couple". And not only Critical_Fallacy has pointed out the distinctive characteristic of people from different walks of life may define "a few" differently, unlike you, he has used "a few" as an example because it makes sense, because after all, "a few" is technically, simply more than one amount.

You on the other hand? Decided to adopt this method to scoff at my approach to philosophy, emphasizing on how I am completely stubborn in my "experience" to the extent of not knowing what "a couple" really means (which is absolutely hilarious for you to have that kind of perception of me).

How about this? Let's imagine the very same dialogue you which you have provided, only this time, change "a couple", to "a few". Wouldn't that make more sense? I mean, I would definitely do that, but I don't know about you.

Oh wait. Maybe, just maybe, I didn't actually know what "a couple" really means! That would justify it wouldn't?

Fat chance. Nevertheless, for the sake of hilarity, your zealousness on precision of philosophy vs. my goobledygook is akin to explaining how our as*ses are howering while we're sitting down (Pauli Exclusion Principle) to a hungry child in Africa who hasn't eaten in three days.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jan 9 2013, 08:30 AM

It appears you learned nothing, simply because it does not come from a book.

Again, you insisted that I am saying one should stop reading completely. Read my posts again, and I hope you will understand. I am merely offering an alternative to be less vicarious.

And if I ever failed you in accordance to the platonic forms and other flawed views, by all means, lay it on me, so that I will understand.

Except that you also did not understand that the process of deep-thinking will also inevitably involves reading. I am beginning to view your stance of reply as an opposition towards those who does not read. What you have failed to understand that you are reading the ideas of those who have thought about it first. These great philosophers may have their inspiration from others as well, which is something we wouldn't know completely. How then, will it not be possible for others in the world to emerge as the same?

Yes. Are you referring to the Theory of Forms? The most idealistic attribute which everyone has which suggests that all humans have universal values regardless of actual, of the involvement tangible experience in each of those scenarios I have shown with the questions you call "tautologies".

However, wouldn't the Theory of Forms also apply to those who has experience in life, and do not spend their time reading about philosophy? How does this refute me when I say experience is more important than just reading?

More importantly, take a look at all of your replies towards me. It clearly shows a sign of immaturity and pride, for you are a person who has obtained a degree in philosophy, and you did not like me because I have took away the credits of your studies due to your lack of experience about philosophy. I can still remember that I am doing all of these because you kept quoting and using references from other philosophers endlessly, but instead of seeing you as an actual philosopher, I see you as a FACTORY-MADE STUDENT of philosophy, which is in my opinion, a bad kind of philosophy.

I apologize if this offends you, but I suppose it will appease me if you were to to stop talking a like a green horn who has just discovered that he/she has a new ammunition (philosophy) to indulge in his/her own mental hedonism, as if he/she is a child who is overly excited over a new toy.

But then again, that is not my right to tell people what to think. It should be in my stance to go against fellow humans who studies philosophy. It's just my personality of hating those who opens their mouth in delight to inform the world of their new knowledge just because they managed to find new words and terminologies by watching last night's Bloomberg.

Go on ahead with your thing, and do not worry about me. Your replies clearly shows that this is unhealthy for you.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Mar 6 2013, 06:29 AM