Philosophy doesn't have to be learned, it's all about deep thinking. Some people are naturally born with it, some aren't. You can't teach someone how to THINK. It's always possible for a road sweeper to have a more philosophical mind than someone with a philosophy degree.

i agree with the last sentence where a person can have a more philosophic mind than someone with a philosophy degree. is a judge the epitome of justice personified? there may well be a politician or a citizen who isn't a judge who feels a greater need for justice.

anyway i disagree with philosophy doesn't have to be learned, it's all about deep thinking.

now my answer to this sentence, to whoever who chooses to read this and is curious to resolve this is, tabula rasa vs innate ideas.

as for you midnight, if indeed philosophy doesn't have to be learned but thought of deeply, think deeply about this - tabula rasa vs innate ideas. please midnight, refrain from using any external aid, i.e., google, wikipedia, philosophy books, etc in making your argument.

again midnight, please think deeply about tabula rasa vs innate ideas. please do not consult any books or the internet or any ideas expounded by philosophers in arriving at a conclusion.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Jan 12 2013, 07:33 PM

(1) Like you said, we think deeper...

(2) Yes! You are naturally-born philosopher after all! Why?

(3) Because you just taught us how to THINK that, you can't teach us how to THINK.

(4) And you're absolutely right on the conclusion that we can't learn anything from your philosophy after all.

Voila! Joking time is over. Though it seemed to be a self-refuting idea, most logical paradoxes are known to be invalid arguments, but occasionally are still valuable in promoting critical thinking.

Lame .

I'm one who believe in nature over nurture. Even if you manage to teach someone on how to think, at the end of the day, it will not be something that is deep-rooted within them. It's not what they will do and feel spontaneously. For example, curiosity, the thirst for truth, or the urge to understand how everything works.

Just like i can't teach anyone to think that we can't teach someone on how to think. Unless that person has come to his/her own profound realization after reading what i wrote

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?

let me clarify my current stance to u. i'm gonna talk to u, deadlocks, as a person now... not as someone who wants to discuss philosophy.

firstly, thanks for the advice.

next, why should i correct or discuss with you, deacklocks? if you are curious enough, u will rely on your own effort. i tried to reason with u but all i got for that was "you're in love with power, you are arrogant you are not humble, blah blah blah." oh sagely deadlocks, once bitten twice shyla, you don't know meh?

so yeah, to put it plainly ok... google and read "platonic forms" yourself. if u are truly pro-active, hands-on, curious about philosophy, humble like u advice others to be, etc, you would have done your research about "platonic forms" before u even asserted confidently on some "platonic forms = shallow thinking" whatever cock definitionla bro.

p.s: next time when you get a rash... go to the doctor and if he tells you u have skin cancer... argue with him and say in your experience, it is a mosquito bite. if he tries to correct you, call him arrogant and not humble enough or deep enough to understand your diagnostic of the rash being a mosquito bite. in my opinion, go seek a second opinion.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Feb 13 2013, 05:01 PM

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

on the contrary if i talk philosophy with u, i will run rings around your "theories".

anyway concerning your replies, good that u finally decided to read up on theory on forms... it's about time. now at least u understand at least a tiny bit but perhaps still - all i know is that i know nothing - as u like to say of yourself. which i question again, then why do u have so much faith in "experience"? aren't you contradicting what u said? who cares about all this eh deadlocks... in the end i'm just a nobody who doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breadth as you. why am i questioning you when you are indeed omniscient!

it's funny that you are putting me down but i don't mind at all as all i see is the typical "me and the Other" being played out here. identities are formed by seeing how "the Other" is and from which we form an understanding on our own identity. okay i will explain because it is good form to actually explain unlike you. at least i will give u an insight into what i'm thinking... something which i feel is increasingly unilateral. please do me a favour and explain yourself in clear and concise language please thanks.

identity and the Other.

say i play football. how do i know i play well or i don't play well? if i play alone without anybody, i have no idea what is my current standard. but if i play with other people, i will know my standard. so if i see a player having a better technique, physique, etc than me, he is a better player and me not so good. now i know i'm not so good... this is seeing yourself through the Other. i apologize but as much as i would like to waste my time and be empirical about my arguments, i should actually give u 2 or 3 more examples. but since u are smart or profess to be, i take it as a givenla k. hint : do the same thing with tall, fat etc.

experience and experiment

so there u go. real life application of knowledge (philosophy), identity and the Other, to something which a layman would say "reality of things"... experience as u like to say it.

by the way experience and experiment share the same latin etymology. you think you are so smart and say oh yeah you papacatastrophe are just some "factory made student". okay... by the same reasoning so are doctors, architects, engineers, lawyers are the same factory made student assuming that they went through the whole schooling process. so what is the difference between students that become engineers, lawyers etc who use their knowledge for "real life application"?

philosophy is a study about ideas, theories, etc. philosophy as a whole is wide and ideas are categorised into different subheadings, political philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophy of the mind, moral philosophy, ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, etc. existentialism? you could say it shares similar ideas to ethics and moral philosophy etc. where is the real life application of these ideas? by your actions while applying philosophy to your chosen subject.

what if i tell u there is a "practical" application to philosophy, as seen in philosophy of science. you see, it is the IDEA of falsification that made science the way it is today. basically, falsification is where a hypothesis can be proven wrong and if it withstands it through proofs, it's a good assumption that the hypothesis is reliable. can religion be falsified? no because they don't give u any proofs in reply. so there u go... what is philosophy to you deadlocks or your interest in this field? what do u actually want from it except recognition and prestige to have "read books". you need to actually look at the author's methodology... did he back up the claim convincingly with proofs? can his ideas be "falsified"?

when one reads philosophy and the ideas it entails, he will seek to apply the ideas to theories and to other ideas as well. in other words, he reads then conducts the proper experience/experiment, philosophy of science and its falsification to the practical application of science.

you and the Other, or rather deadlocks and papacatastrophe

i talk about objective things (ideas) and you talk about subjective things (your experience). so when u say i only know how to spout quotes while you on the other hand experience life etc... in your tiny head, only you deadlocks is doing something with your life while all i am doing is thinking about ideas but not doing anything. how are we suppose to talk when there's no consensus about what we should use as our "language", i.e., law has its own legal terms, psychology its own, philosophy as well. i thought philosophy would be our "language" but u seem to be off-put by it and say i'm merely spouting ideas. so i assume you are doing it right with philosophy then? living through your philosophy through your experience, telling us how it should be... if that's not akin to a sage then what is it?

i can do this all day long but what is the point of talking ideas with a person who refuses to engage, but in fact chooses to indulge of his own personal experience and take it as the truth and benchmark for other ideas. to falsify your "experience" is an attack on your being and it made u sensitive. don't u see how pointless is it? the day u choose to talk about ideas not some "experience"... then i'll take u seriously. until then, the beard doesn't make the philosopher.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Mar 6 2013, 01:01 PM

all i can say deadlock is that u are not what u made yourself out to be in the first place. the title of this topic is "where can one study philosophy in malaysia". u said u want to learn, u don't want some online course but face to face contact as u feel u might learn more.

i said okay, i have experience in philosophy, i studied it and i would be willing to meet and talk. u said no, and instead u said :

"That's not going to be helpful. Anyone can just read up and talk all they want about it.

Live your life with the understanding of philosophy which you have learned, and prepare to answer the question:

"Will you shape your life, and will your life shape you? Accept your fate and be happy? Or defy it and be glorious?"

anyone who reads this will think easily think... what a f***ing idiot. what's with the contradiction? bad form tsk tsk

okay, so you think you're a philosopher or a sage telling people what they ought or should do, just because u think about philosophy, you think you're special. personally, i wouldn't even dare consider myself a philosopher! but okay, to each his own. by such a definition, you are therefore a teacher, a chef and a philosopher.

you have experience learning, does that make u a good teacher? both have something to do with knowledge.

you have experience in eating, does that make you a good cook? both have to do with food. but what is the difference?

you have experience in googling philosophy online, but does that make u a philosopher? both have their similarities in dealing with ideas. but what is the difference?

the difference is you actually have to learn to be a teacher. u need to learn how to cook to be a chef. u need to learn the ideas underlying the umbrella term "philosophy".

so yeah, your arrogance, you pride in nothing but your ego is so ridiculous that you dare even claim - all i know is that i know nothing - as your maxim. if u know nothing, then why do u claim to know what i know as "unhelpful"; unless u already know it is "unhelpful", therefore you actually know something! don't u see how ridiculous u are? u are not even following what u say and do! aren't you a sham?

u quote socrate's, "all i know is that i know nothing". let me throw another of socrate's maxim, "know thyself". meaning be honest with yourself. but being honest is the hardest thing one can do for himself so if u claim to even know yourself through whatever cock experience... let me say this, you are just claiming to be a sage once again. u are the enemy of reason and enlightenment and u can by all means try to start a cult and i with all my power will bring u down.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Mar 6 2013, 02:42 PM

I have to say i really like reading your posts, it sharpens my mind.

thank you sereneashley

http://www.meetup.com/Socrates-Cafe-KL/

A Fresh Taste of Philosophy


Elvis Chau's philosophical "Heaven and Hell" print ad for Samsonite earned Mainland China's first Grand Prix Lion at the 2011 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity. The ad is based on fears that every traveler might face.

heh heh nothing is sacred anymore in late capitalism!

Where is the promised reply from Deadlocks anyway? Is it taking him this long to try to refute?

D’locks would usually endure it all calmly with pertinent fortitude and befitting temperance, even when provoked impetuously by some man.

This post has been edited by Critical_Fallacy: Apr 2 2013, 01:41 AM

ooo i hope we're talking about the same man here.