LOL

okayla all u want to hear is, "yes you're right" isn't it? okay i'm gonna say it then. wait for it.... breathe....

*drum rolls*

YES YOU'RE RIGHT!

*cymbals fade*

are u happy now? was it all worth it? do u feel like a philosopher now? i bet you do don't you.

go forth and spread your message deadlocks! the world awaits!

...you speak to represent to the love for wisdom, and yet, you portray only as a person who has lots of information, for that gives you power. And you enjoyed that power, evidently from your previous post with a myriad of questions...only to have them answered by yourself. No offence, but that will leave an impression as if you are merely asking them rhetorically, without an actual inquiry.

And to make things worse, your move to approach it in a nonchalant manner while being sarcastic was obviously exposing your true colours. Your age, your maturity, and you have portrayed no sense of character, and dignity for yourself. If you are truly in love with philosophy and IMPLEMENT them, you shall know something that I wouldn't need to tell you, being the philosophy graduate you are, and that is --

A man who has too much pride and does not even see and admit of what he has done is a small man. For that I shall apologize to you, because I should have seen it coming before I start pointing out what I see, which is obviously a sign of my lack of political correctness with people. Go on ahead to do what you wish, for I have spoken enough, and if you wish it, I will apologize, and I have.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Nov 29 2012, 02:12 AM

haih philosopher deadlocks, go read up on rhetorics and you'll see everyone does it, not just politicians but even professors from across the board do practice rhetorics to get their points across. is there then a difference between good rhetorics and bad rhetorics?

hahaha it doesn't matter man. call it whatever you want deadlock but in philosophy (i shouldn't have to tell u this), this would be known as... what is it deadlocks? i'm sure u know it wan.... yes correct, you are right again... methodology.

ay anyway sorry for being arrogant for not kowtowing to a philosopher in front of me. but u see, i have too much pride in what i think (re: freedom of thought).

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

mmm yes yes i see it now. it's really clear what u wrote. wow it amazes me how there's so much information in the things u wrote. like really, u don't explain anything at all, unlike some philosophy hacks out there who publish books and we are made to read them in our course outlines.

but thank you deadlocks yes i see it now, the morality behind the questions yes. that's really deep. but i'm sure i'm not the first person who told u that. i will meditate on your latest gem of a philosophical insight. thank you ah

So what is your moral system? Are you a utilitarian? kantian? relativist? absolutist?

Attention :
papacatastrophe and others who really believes that discussion can lead to sharing of knowledge and broaden our views..

Lets arrange a TT session. One thing that i have agreeing with deadlocks is that he is encouraging the ability to speak your mind instead of citing.. but the rest..sorry to say la brother !! You have been googling too much ..

So yeah if anyone interested we can always arrange a TT session and update me ..

p/s :i'm interested in applying it in our daily life to cultivate critical thinking instead of discussing about some books ..

Sounds captivating!

Could you tell us, how did you interpret “it” that you want to apply in your daily life for cultivating critical thinking? And what kind of meaning did you give “it”?

hey darkvader,

well yeah i guess there needs to be critical thinking, but in defence of (my need for) citing, personally i saw it is a "form" of methodology and i sought to give a certain reference point for further inquiry into the subject matter. while i'm not comparing what i wrote to be fantastic, to give u an analogy, in scientific studies, you need a certain method to show that an experiment is demonstrable on a consistent basis. but anyway yeah, in a TT session, there will be less citations and more free flow talking.

secondly, don't get me wrong... i am for speaking your mind and having a critical mind just like what deadlocks opined. but just say we follow deadlock's method of having your own "philosophy through experience", it is akin to asking a man on a beach to design an apartment complex that will be used for construction. no doubt he has experience in building sand castles, but has he ability to design an actual building in real life? unfortunately, u will need to read books in order to design an actual functional building.

again don't get me wrong it's not that i have some bourgeois morals where u need a degree in order to philosophize! in architecture, one the most famous architect, corbusier was an autodidact who learnt the art via his own efforts in reading and cultivating his skill! going back to our little exchange between deadlocks and i, i think he's merely building sand castles in the sky, meaning he would like to "philosophize" but without the effort to read what others have said on a subject matter.

but anyway, yeah u should join the "philosophy discussion (malaysia)" group on facebook where we'll try to organise such a teh tarik session. so yeah all is welcomed!

---

Added on December 25, 2012, 7:40 pmyeah darkvader, that will be a tough affair ehh... you want to have critical thinking on this "it" without doing the groundwork of reading. sure we can chip in our two cents on this "it" but there's nothing better than first hand information, meaning you do the reading yourself. at least this way u can verify the veracity of our statements and come to your own conclusion. cos in the end, i'm afraid what you want sounds more like spoon feeding and as a result not really "critical thinking".

heh heh, another anology (sorry), u have religious groups telling and interpreting the holy text to a bunch of people. but upon reading it first hand (from a source of which i forgot), jesus didn't say anything against the LGBT as i was told. teehehe, yeah i will need to verify that bit myself but i thought it was interesting...

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Dec 25 2012, 07:53 PM

Wow.. this discussion is really nice. Had a good time reading from head till bottom. @papacatastrophe you can be a good philosophy teacher lol
Although I do not agree to everything that you guys said, but then who will?
There are really too much things waiting us to learn... what we are discussing here might not even make sense to ourselves in the future if we continue to learn more.. What I am trying to say is that... what's the point of standing so firm on our own standings... because after all, we are only human, what we know right now is so limited... no point being so serious or butthurt about anything...

Not sure if any of you can understand what I am trying to say because I am really bad at writing..

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

Too general my friend. Probably you should google it.

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

TS,

4 levels of wisdom:

1) I know nothing

2) I know what I know but I do not know what I do not know

3) I know what I know and what I do not know

4) Go back to (1)

How do you teach the blind the color of red??

Do you know what you do not know?? If not, how do you find your blind spot??

Dreamer

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

Deadlocks,

Only YOU know what you do not know. Nobody else can do it for you.

Dreamer

P.S.: I had told you.

If a person CHOOSE only to look towards the left, the person will never know what is on the right side. Look at your own posts and biases. What you had chosen to IGNORE and hence incapable of seeing??

If you are BLIND and somebody tell you about the existence of color of red, will you CHOSE to INVESTIGATE or IGNORE??

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Dec 31 2012, 10:48 AM

Hi Dreamer,

Do you mind elaborating point number 4? Does it mean that once a person has achieved level 3 he would realize that what he knows is relatively negligible to what he can learn from the world?

Thanks.

ohsome,

Yes.

Dreamer

http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Making-Livin...l/dp/0140195998

TS,

I am reading this book.

From: this book, Page 488.

To improve your learning capacity

1) Focus: Remember your purposes. Concentrate on why you want to learn

2) Open: Admit that you do not already know, and accept that it is okay

3) Reflect: Gain confidence by recalling what you have already learned.

4) Observe: Increase your awareness. (Improve your capacity to perceive process and distinguish differences )

5) Model: Take advantage of other people's experience

6) Act: Practice, practice, practice.

I am following Zen. I consider all those Philosophy 101 and stuff is too limiting.

Dreamer

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