Where can one study philosophy in Malaysia?

Is there a channel where I can inquire for the prerequisites?

what kind of philosophy u're looking for?

I am not looking for a specific branch of philosophy. Is there a philosophy 101, where all beginners start, i.e, an introductionary course?

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/

Deadlocks,

They are ALL available FREE from MIT over the Internet...

You can find those from Princeton and Harvard university too...

Dreamer

Are there no traditional classrooms for philosophy in Malaysia?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Aug 14 2011, 08:12 AM

Deadlocks,

Why do you want LOW CLASS education when you can get WORLD CLASS education from MIT, Harvard, and Princeton??

Philosophy is THINKING about THINKING...

Why do you need a classroom to THINK??

Dreamer

Because I prefer human interaction, not that I insisted on choosing questionable quality of education, of course.

Deadlocks,

Do you MEAN that YOU are NOT a human being?? YOU cannot interact with YOURSELF?? YOU cannot QUESTION yourself??

Philosophy is THINKING about THINKING. That also mean the ABILITY to see / think from more that ONE POV. Nobody can do it for YOU. YOU have to be ABLE to QUESTION and DEBATE and look from multiple POV. Including ONE that is TOTALLY opposite your current POV.

Dreamer

I understand what you mean, but I prefer interaction with another person than myself. I like philosophy for what it is, but I will be joyful should I have study + human interaction as a package.

Surely education is not a lonesone journey? Unless you think it is.

Try checking out this distance learning site. You can get a University of London external degree in philosophy from it. To be frank, you will not get any philosophy courses in Malaysia, either in local universities or foreign. Not a "practical" or a degree which can cari makan. Malaysian mentality. Do go and learn philosophy, it does broadens one's mind and encourages one to think properly. But don't expect to get a job from it. Used to have a friend who studied philosophy in UK, did it for interest. Still ended up working in a bank and went through their training program. Could have been promoted faster if had gone through an accounting degree or something more practical and related.

http://www.philosophypathways.com/programs/index.html

Same goes for Art degree holders. A friend of mine however, became a principal of an international private school by having that degree in LESS THAN A YEAR, shocking everyone with business, accounting, and other so-called "practical" degrees, while everyone is wondering why they couldn't get a job with that degree.

And it is because of this, it reignited my hope that although philosophy and art degree holders are shun by corporations for being impractical, my friend is the perfect example of how that is actually NOT TRUE at all. Here is his view of "degrees".

"Degrees are useless". What you need is enlightenment, philosophically, and spiritually, and you will understand how things work, and when you understand how they work, YOU WIN.

Thanks for the link, will check it out.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Aug 16 2011, 05:15 AM

philosophically not about learning only, is about how do u feel.

If u study in internet, u just study ppl experince, the concept in his/her mind.
But unfortunely, many things bound with our environmental grow, from era to era, culture to culture, one place to another place, all teori renew & renew again.

What u study today may diference tomoro. Depend on the environment u live.

Example: look at the england riot today, they r too many student (they r lucky bcos can get high educated) involved in the incident. & one of the riot (graduator) who claim that: "I join bcos i want to know is that i'm still valueble to the community? My "price" in this country. Am i importance to this country????

Sometime Things r easy as eat cake, just that we can't accept it.
for me, philosophic is like an Fate (jodoh), one may or may not meet it.
It destiny, It fate.

Good Luck.

Things as easy as eating cake is what I used to think when I was a 5 year old kid. So I can't think like a kid anymore, I will have to apologize for that.

I agree that philosophy is not all about reading, it has a lot to do with how one perceives his life, with the surroundings. But since there are actually education for philosophy, one can hardly refuse such hedonistic endeavour.

However, I'm quite baffled as how you relate philosophy as "fate", and "destiny". Philosophy means the love for wisdom, and you seemed to be a person who rejected deep thoughts to live things as simple as possible, not to say that it is wrong, but you seemed to be a person who dislike thinking because it is way too hard to do so, and decided to call it "fate" to simplify things, not knowing that you may be limiting yourself.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Aug 16 2011, 03:42 PM

Hey Deadlocks!! Good to know someone else other than me is looking for a philo course somewhere xD. HELP used to have an introduction to philosophy class last few years (and a very good lecturer), but the donkey head of dept. for ADP caused stupid problems and made her leave. I'm currently looking for philosophy classes as well, maybe, if you'd like to, we can update one another if we find something? I'll just share with you what I found so far, sorry if they're a bit messy.

The UoL external program is one way you can go about studying philosophy it is accredited and it is pretty good (London philosophy programs are probably some of the best and most difficult ones). Apparently they're accepting applications for the external in September http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/how_t.../malaysia.shtml and I'm planning to take the introduction course first (depending on how I do, I'll decide whether or not to go on with the diploma and degree). Exams will be on next year May.

The philosophy pathways program is also pretty good, from what I've seen, though it can be a little pricey if you couple it both with the UoL diploma/degree program. From what I gather, they'll give you homework and writings to do, and you'll send your answer to them. The tutors will then check and give you a 800 word comment on how to fix and develop your essays further. Correspondence will be through email only, if I'm not mistaken. There're also private tutors that will tutor you through skype. I don't remember where I've seen it, but I'll update the post if I can find it again. There're no prices, but I'm guessing it'll be a lot more expensive than the philosophy pathways programs, because of the guy's supposed PhD and tutoring experiences in Oxford.

If you want to study in a university, the closest you can get a degree in philosophy will be at Singapore at NUS. I'm not sure of the entry requirements, though, but based on their rankings, I'm guessing it'd be hell getting into the program. I know AIMST in Kedah has introductory philosophy classes as well, but from what my friend recounted to me, it's not worth going there to take.

I was thinking also, if you'd like to, we can put together a reading/study group for philosophy. I am looking for more people atm, so let me know what you think xD And are there any particular fields of philosophy you're most interested in?

One last edit: Deadlocks, if you want to read more about philosophy this is a good place to begin. This is an encyclopedia of Philosophy - http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html online. If you want an easier to read book, I suggest you go to the bookstores and buy The Philosophy Book - it's an encyclopedia by DK, very accessible, very easy to read. Gives you a summary of almost all the prominent philosophers from the past until now. It's 90 bucks, I saw it in Borders and Kinokuniya. For a more classic introductory text, try Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy - http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.html (and if you want to get the ebook http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5827 ) Compared to other writings by other philosophers, it's quite easy to read, and I know some universities use this as a basic required reading for their philosophy courses.

Also, I'd like to respond to some of the other posts made. First xenotzu, on the practicality of Philosophy, I must say i completely disagree with your view. Philosophy encourages analytical and critical thinking abilities, which are of a lot of value to employers. My uncle, who is a GM with a timber company in Sarawak has banker friends that prefer people with a philosophy degree, because of their ability to think. His friend himself has a degree in philosophy, and outshines the people with financial/banking background. And contrary to what you think, some bosses actually have some knowledge of philosophy - and knowing some popular names in philosophy does help e.g. Karl Marx, Adam Smith. I back my arguments also with the fact that philosophy graduates tend to have higher GRE scores than grads from other fields (in both written and quantitative aspects). Philosophy students can grasp banking fast. But banking graduates might not be able to grasp thinking fast. And this - is a major advantage.

Dreamer 101, thinking about thinking is not philosophy, it's metacognition (I can tell you all about metacognition because I learn it in psychology =)) And while I agree with you that thinking is mainly a personal process, it is difficult to learn about philosophy on your own. I'd like to see you self-learn Heidegger or Kant by yourself, without help from others. Well if you can, I'll concede that your point makes sense. Also, I agree that MIT is world class, no doubt. But what makes their graduates world class is not their lectures. It's their tutors and their discussions. Students are assigned private tutors that help them develop their thinking skills outside the lecture. That is what classroom/university interaction entails, and what makes students step up and become better thinkers. I watched the entire series from Yale about the philosophy of death. Yeah, it's good. I learnt a lot. But honestly, it's not enough. I won't be able to write essays on the subject just by watching the lecture.

And limfreelance, well, it's good to know that you acknowledge the development in thinking processes. I'm a bit concerned though, cause if its true that we're developing so fast, you seem to be thinking that we should just stop learning altogether, since "what u study might be different tomorrow" instead of trying to step up to learn what's new. A bit dangerous, no?

This post has been edited by mktu12629: Aug 24 2011, 12:15 AM

Well, well, well. What do we have here? I'll check out the sources you've posted, but really, it's nice to know that there are someone out there who are...well, alike.

Thanks a lot for your help.

Lol np xD for one I am absolutely certain that education is never a lonesome journey. There are way more people who want to learn more than we might expect (even in Malaysia, just... Less common?)

Less common? That's an understatement. It's almost void of any philosophical thought, never forgetting to mention the absolute absence of questioning, except for the rare, handful people around who are either hard to find, or simply have left the country.

Philosophy is an invitation to ponder, in the largest possible perspective, the weightier, more stubborn problems of human existence. It is also an invitation to think—to wonder, to question, to speculate, to reason, even to fantasize—in the eternal search for wisdom. In a word, philosophy is an attempt to weave interconnecting lines of illumination between all the disparate realms of human thought in the hope that, like a thousand dawnings, new insights will burst through.

This is only a suggestion, after evaluating your personality based on some of your canny posts. My inference could be less than accurate, but if you like Philosophy so much, and if you really have strong interests in the study of human minds and behaviors, perhaps then you may want to consider Social Psychology. Social Psychology has been defined as “the scientific investigation of how the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others”.

It isn't just the study of human behaviour I am interested in. It is about understanding how provoking, and why are similar things in everyday life will actually become strange when you think about them. Normality, is as good as absurdity.

I might be missing something here because I’m not sure if I understand what you are saying, but you sounded almost as if you are a Xenophile. Well, nothing wrong with the behavior, as that's just part of the bigger picture, Curiosity. Most people have affections for unusually strange or unknown objects, people, animals, or provocative concepts, etc. to a certain degree out of curiosity. I can tell by your style of writing that you are a revolutionist about philosophy, which I like about that. Perhaps, you may even creatively start a new branch of philosophy. You don't need a PhD to become a Philosopher, isn't it?

hey guys i know this is slightly late but i'm interested setting up a philosophy meet-up come october/november 2012 if one doesn't already exist. if not, a teh tarik session in oct/nov would be great

Go read up and discuss here.

i did my degree in philosophy in lyon, france and i will be returning back home come oct/nov. the reason why i would like to set up a philo meet-up so that we may explore certain themes together, read up, discuss, etc.

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?

deadlocks,

you seem certain that meeting up and discussing philosophical themes won't be useful. in the end, philosophy is the "love of wisdom" and as long as you have that, it is the end that matters, not the means, as said by kant. ultimately, it is your choice and your own will to refuse my proposition and i can't change that.

as sartre puts it, you have free will and decision making implies a value judgement on a thing or an action, i.e., water will have value to a thirsty man in a desert but not so much to a man in a café. after all, he has a choice between all the beverages and he might see more value in a cup of tea rather than water. similarly, if the man is suicidal, he will not see water or food as having value at all!

having said that, is there at the very end, an intrinsic value in water, food or life, independent of the subject?

just like the above, i guess to you, my proposition has no value. but does it have an intrinsic value i wonder?

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

your questions compose of existential and moral philosophy. questions wrestled by philosophers of old like plato, aristotle up to kant and its culminating point in sartre and heidegger. philosophy being a study, it is formalised and contains on its own a specialised jargon by which i have restructured your questions into "philosophy speak" to ease your hermeneutical research in philosophical texts.

the questions posed by them are :

1. "why is there something instead of nothing?"
2. "what is being?"
3. "what is the "thing in itself" (essence) of being?"
4. "is everything determined or does free will exist?"
5. "if free will exists, what is the meaning/value of our actions?"
6. "how to live a virtuous life?"
7. "how do i behave? according to my desires or the universal law of nature (deontic)?"

i'm afraid due to the lengths at which i will have to write to explain them all along with time constraints, you should do the reading and research on your own.

to start with, u can start by reading about the difference of opinion between "idealism and materialism" and later on sartre and the philosophers i have mentioned. from there you will get a semblance of an answer to your question.

as for meeting up face-to-face, i had the impression that a "human contact" was what you were looking for. but now i agree with you that there is no need for both of us to do just that. however, i will continue to find someone that i may discuss philosophical themes with.

have a good day deadlocks.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Jul 14 2012, 12:18 AM

Nope you don't understand. I was preventing you the dangers of hedonism which comes from your newly discovered knowledge.

https://www.coursera.org/course/introphil

the above is a free online introductory course to philosophy that'll begin in january 2013.

sign up, participate and you'll get a certificate in the end

Thanks.

Nope you don't understand. I was preventing you the dangers of hedonism which comes from your newly discovered knowledge.

[/quote]


deadlocks,

i find this reply unsatisfactory. what is your definition of being a hedonist?

please note what Montaigne said, "Philosophy makes those who are devoted to her, happy and cheerful."

is it then wrong to be a hedonist?

in philosophy, you always need to explain what is the object in question. that means explaining all the different views and opinions that are associated with the object in question.

personally speaking, from your reply to my proposition, it wasn't implied in any way that you were trying to prevent me from the "dangers of hedonism". but whatever. i don't know what is true (i'm no mindreader) so i choose not to decide / pursue it further (see scepticism).

p.s : concerning the link, you're welcome. good luck with the course.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Aug 2 2012, 09:26 PM

Nope you don't understand. I was preventing you the dangers of hedonism which comes from your newly discovered knowledge.


When hedonism exhibits another form of instant gratification, then yes, it is dangerous.

Notice that you are contradicting what philosophy wants you to do. You take references from others by quoting them. I write my own quotes.

And I like being a walking uncyclopedia, trying to resist every chance of applying agitation propaganda on anyone I see whom deserves it.

And thanks again for the link.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Aug 8 2012, 09:40 PM

so what is philosophy then to you my dear deadlocks?

from how you explained the workings of philosophy, we shouldn't reference any source to back up our argument. if you do this in university, you'll fail your first semester exams.

it's funny that you like philosophy if you think you can solve philosophical problems without reading other's approach to them. if that is the love for wisdom and knowledge, then i can only assume it is only the love for your own.

but okay, maybe you're coming up with a brand new philosophical system that burns all thousands of years of tradition and for that reason, there will be no need to reference anything.

wow really if you accomplish that, you could very well be the first malaysian recipient for a nobel prize in literature! i can't wait... malaysia boleh!

edit : reading philosophy provides a certain disposition to a person to question everything, including his own beliefs and proceed to put them to the test (see Descartes, sorry). can you comfortably say you weren't being dogmatic in your replies? If one does not have any "doubt" or enquiry but see the apex being his own perfect being, i suppose reading An Idiot's Guide to Being a Dictator would make more sense.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Aug 10 2012, 02:16 AM

I'm sure both of us are exposed to a few quotes and some philosophical figures. And you were right about questioning. What you didn't realize was that they can be misconstrued in various ways, hence the best philosophy is indeed one individual's own personal experience of his/her existentialism. Once you got out of "reading materials" and start living like a life as a philosopher as your own, you will understand. And until you start being original, you will never stop quoting references with tendencies equivalent to a ceremonious, ritualistic parrot (yes, all they do is learn the words and repeat them), and will only view within the perspective of the ones you adore, not the ones you own. And this is why I say you are but a victim to hedonism, because you do not understand of the instant gratification you take each time you absorb a philosophy from others.

In addition, your response on "Malaysia Boleh" shows how immature you are when it comes to the political environment in our country, and shows you have not transcended the need for nationalistic (and probably racial) pride, and perhaps this is really how I knew that you, and philosophy, are still merely as a nodding acquaintance to each other.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Aug 10 2012, 07:58 AM

haha i laugh as i read your reply.

indeed it is pointless for us to meet up as u mentioned before.

i say this because you are in love with your own self. you potray yourself as a sage, walking a lonely road to whatever truth you're looking for. you my friend should start living life.

btw, your comments about the political environment is incoherent.

race, culture, customs are all but relative. what i cherish are universal values.

anyway, you have shown your true colours so whatever and enjoy your "philosophy" or whatever it is.

kthnxbai

Hmm, I have ignored this post long enough. Let's read this again.

Few points which you do not understand:

1) You were wrong about sages being lonely. You clearly do not know that they are great philosophers right now in the midst of this country living normal lives.

2) If what you cherish are universal values, you should possess at least awareness of the ignorance of the slogan you have uttered, "Malaysia Boleh". How is one exclaiming "Malaysia Boleh", when he should be saying "Mankind Boleh", if you are truly indeed universal?

If you have truly found your true colours, trust me when I said you have finally realized yours as well. How would you react, with PRIDE, or with HUMILITY?

Refreshing discussion. My short definition of philosophy is the search for meaning. I have never studied philosophy, but I can say that I may have had more than may share of existential angst. I have recently been questioning the apparent lack of questioning in this country. I say apparent because I'm not sure if this is the reality or I may be completely wrong and this maybe some illusion that afflicts my view. In any case, my search lead me to this thread.

Where does one go to find the "native" Malaysian philosopher? where does one find the Nietzsche of Malaysia? Does one look for him among the political elite? or the university academics? Is he malay, chinese or indian? What are the philosophical basis that underlie life in Malaysia? Who formulated them? who imported them? Or maybe the question should be what is the spirit of Malaysia? the ghost that animates this country?

Please forgive my naive questions. I'm only trying to say that I think it is healthy to question because for man, to understand the meaning behind the form is perhaps more important than the form itself.

Almost everyone is a qualified "philosopher" due to his/her own experiences. You'll just have to find people who are rather chatty about it, and stereotypically speaking, the closest match you can find are those currently in Malaysia who have certain amount of Western values in them.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but without details of the kind of private school you speak of we really can't say much about that story of yours. To be sure, there are a lot of shady, dodgy, or not very well run private, 'international' schools out there, and they may be profitable for many reasons, one being the attraction of parents who prioritise English-medium learning for their children given the unpredictability in public education policy, the other being the considerable wealth and influence of the owners/operators of such schools. I think most schools hire principals for their experience and ability, while the average graduate who hasn't even left school for longer than 12 months will hardly be able to demonstrate adequate quantities of either.

I'm not saying your friend is merely an average graduate. He/she may be an exceptional individual for all we know. But the reality is that there are a lot of people around the world doing Arts-type degrees (International Relations, Politics, Sociology, Languages, Asian/Oriental Studies, History, and Philosophy which is relatively rare) and most of them are not destined for huge corporate jobs. They are more likely to venture into politics and government, NGOs, journalism etc. Of course some may be qualified for banking jobs, and we have all heard the stories of investment bankers with Philosophy and Sociology degrees. I have also known people with upper-management jobs in banks who studied languages. But note that the school they graduate from is usually quite exceptional.

The backgrounds of those holding/having/who had top jobs who are not self-made (e.g. Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Roman Abramovich, Henry Ford, JP Morgan) is quite clear - they usually have practical or 'applicable' degrees (applicable here refers to those not traditionally seen as practical, but which can have commercial/professional applications and which are in demand, such as Mathematics and Physics). Most of them have some background in Business, Commerce, Economics, Finance, Accounting, Management, Engineering, Mathematics etc.

Now, if we talk about practicality and the Malaysian mentality, it's not easy to change what is in place. Preferences for Commerce or Quantitative degree-holders may be in policies. Many 'Business' graduates are hard enough to train once employed, so management may not want to take a chance with Arts graduates, who have every possibility of knowing less about Commerce, Banking and Finance than 'Business' graduates.

It is a good thing to have a passion for the subject you study.

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask how my friend with the Art degree made it? You call it "exceptional" but all you're really saying that my friend simply got "lucky". Furthermore, this are his own words:

"During his interview for the job, none of them believed that he is MERELY holding an Art Degree. This is because when pulled out right, an Art degree gives you a philosophical advantage, not just the love of wisdom and enlightenment through art, but the WISDOM of the WORLD to the DEGREE that you are WORTH THE RISK."

Call my friend a genius if you want to, but his explanation is simple. The reason those with Art degree couldn't get anywhere in comparison with other degrees is because they just couldn't understand the meaning what an Art degree will bring them.

Oh yeah, my friend does not have any managerial experience before becoming the Vice-Principal of the international school I was talking about. defeating other applicants with their so-called experience...which were OUTDATED.

Yes, there are such things as OUT-DATED experience. There are no 10 years of experience. There is only ONE year of experience multiplied by 10 times, which is the very same 1 year of experience.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Oct 28 2012, 11:26 AM

wow this thread is up again. let's see, mr. deadlocks the self proclaimed sage. i have 3 individual responses to your points.

1. so who are these people that you claim to be great philosophers? from what u wrote, it is assumed that u know them.
2. relativity is a universal value no? look at the theory of relativity that reigns the universe. when i said what i cherish are universal values, that means, each and ever culture has an equal amount of importance and therefore non should proclaim itself a master culture. i guess, i have to spell everything out for u as u think talking about philosophy is pointless. just look at your previous writings (your take on philosophy) and you will see.
3. on the face of things, u will have seen that you should ask yourself the question concerning pride and humility. u don't seek the truth and it has been shown in your previous writings. what u want is recognition (as a sage, philosopher, etc), and that, i'm afraid i don't think i can give. you are but a sham and a proud man.

---

Added on November 7, 2012, 5:27 pmhey guys i created a group on facebook calledPhilosophy Discussion (Malaysia) Philosophy Discussion (Malaysia)

feel free to join and discuss!

hopefully one day we'll get a sufficient amount of people to organise socials and the like.

thanks!

---

Added on November 8, 2012, 1:05 pmhey CBM,

those are interesting questions that you asked and most of them interspersed into various topics under the heading of philosophy. i will not be answering them, but instead restructure your questions, and hopefully narrow down the key areas for you to concentrate your focus.

based on your questions, i think we could ask :

firstly, what is philosophy and who does it? is it based on reason/logos? according to descartes, reason is well distributed in the world, meaning everyone has them and thus philosophy is open to all. this leads me to the second question.

who or what is a philosopher? what are the criteria/conditions to qualify oneself to be a philosopher? is it based on material possessions? reason? does one have to be formally trained, meaning formally, instrumentally applied reason?

lastly, the big one concerning malaysia, i will try my best to explain and not use too much academic terms (it's tedious sorry) so bear with me.

malaysia being a country and itself being run by a government, requires us to think of political philosophy. politics is claimed to the mother of all sciences. but as philosophy does, it questions, so why is politics the mother of all science? first, we should first decouple the two, politics and philosophy, philosophy being the substance and politics being the adjective.

if philosophy is to an extent based on reason and it's end goal is the Truth (disputable), we shall seek to apply the same to politics. furthermore, i shall proceed by asking what is the essence of city/country.

what is politics? its roots date back to greece, polis being the city, it is the art or science of running the city. according to plato, politics is the quest for as you have mentioned above about forms or platonic forms. forms being absolutes, i.e., good, beauty, justice, they are the "goal" which all things strive to be. it is an ideal, an idea.

this applies to the city as per plato, where it is ordered to the "end goal" in the form/idea of "justice". this made plato ask then, what is the best government regime, democracy, aristocracy, etc that best allow the idea of justice to reign through the city.

in the middle ages, you have your st. augustine who said the city is guided by god. therefore, the "form" there was God. now, in modern times, we have marx who spoke about historical materialism. he was inspired by hegel (phenomenology of the spirit) and thought the city is driven or pushed to amass wealth and that our relation of production (social classes, domination, alienation, etc) is supported by a superstructure (religion, laws, political institutions, morals,etc) of a certain place and time. politics according to marx is thus a way of maintaining a certain "relation of production", be it feudalism, slavery, capitalism, socialism, etc. any desire for a change is done by action relying on theory.

marx's link to hegel is his historical dialectics. according to hegel, everything changes according to the triadic thesis, antithesis and synthesis and nothing is ever static just like time, it flows constantly. to give a rough example, thesis (industrial revolution, laissez faire), antitheses (socialist movement, improve working conditions for the masses) and your synthesis (social democracy). history and time doesn't stop and hegel's triadic hypothesis claims to help us understand how things, as he said "all that exists is reasonable", meaning there is a reason for an existing thing/reality. a future reality IS as it will be, according to our act or omission at the present.

on the other hand we have aristotle and his political philosophy which is intertwined with ethics. his take is interesting as as an individual, our "ethics" through constant practice of virtues has the end goal of "happiness" or "the good life". having mentioned that politics involves a city/country and within it community/communities. politics play the role in harnessing the collective to reach the common goal (happiness) via agreeing on a common good.

going back to the question - is politics the mother of all science? for me personally i think the act and purpose of politics as a manner of exercising power. if i am correct, i cite foucault who says "power is everywhere" even in our own houses. power affects us and we are made to behave a certain way. it is seen via the urbanism of a city, architecture of buildings, our laws and custom, our education, etc (see marx's superstructure). power in general is all encompassing and it dominates our everyday lives, be it mundane or otherwise through various techniques derived from a broad range of areas of study.

power is said by foucault to be oppressive, we are suppressed by it, and we repress ourselves due to these suppressions (psychology). stretching your imagination, Politics (with a capital P) has therefore the capacity of power to change not only life out in public but down to people's private intimate lives.

so there u go, a very short summary before delving in to your question.

so what is the spirit that animates malaysia? what is its purpose? is it material goods or happiness, justice, god? does material goods bring happiness (for all)? is it possible for one to achieve happiness without material goods? what is the role of the government? what is the role of the citizen and the idea of citizenship? what are its rights and obligations? these are yet another bunch of standalone questions that may help u.

anyway, this reminds me of the famous maxim of socrates "know thyself". i guess that's what philosophy is, it helps us question and decipher our realities/illusions and hopefully come to an answer or solution. then again, this solution should be questioned and so on and so forth. philosophy never stops questioning.

anyway whoever is interested please join Philosophy Discussion (Malaysia) so that we may be able to discuss topical, profane, etc philosophical issues in the future!

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Nov 8 2012, 05:27 PM

No one is proclaiming that they are the sages which you were referring to, should you are able to read my posts carefully. I was merely pointing out your tendency to "parrot" philosophical quotes, instead of bringing one up from your own.

As for the points you have numbered, allow me to courteously go through them one at a time:

1) Yes, I know them. But neither do they self-proclaim as the sages to be, for they understand pretty well of the quote, "I know that I know nothing", and I'm sure you knew where that come from.

2) You obviously did not understand when I said that you were utterly ignorant from using a slogan such as "Malaysia Boleh". I will not remind of you of the political situations in Malaysia to make this relevant, for that will be out of topic. Nevertheless, like I said, if you TRULY cherish UNIVERSAL values, then slogans like "Malaysia Boleh", or "USA Boleh: should be the last thing you will speak of, because I view those with universal values as those who has transcended nationalistic and racial pride. To utter "Malaysia Boleh" doesn't cut it.

3) Again, I don't know how you came up to the conclusion that I desire reputation, when I am merely pointing out the apparent tantrums you have thrown in defence when you are clearly agitated when I call you a "hedonistic parrot".

Look at your replies again. The tones have changed drastically in comparison to when we first started talking about philosophy in this thread. I have been maintaining my demeanour and composure so far while posting, and it is you who begin to sound defensive.

But then again, who wouldn't be offended when he has graduated/studied philosophy, only to be told that he is nothing but a "parrot" of used, recycled philosophical ideas?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Nov 28 2012, 07:59 PM

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

Deadlocks,

<< 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.>>

You are caught in DUALITY. You ASSUME that there is only 2 ways.

A) Desire

B) No desire

Why?? The goal of Zen is to transcend DUALITY.

You are BLIND but you DO NOT BELIEVE that color red exist.

Dreamer

It is VERY SIMPLE.

You have 2 choices:

A) You are BLIND and hence you DO NOT KNOW that color red exist or not.

B) You are NOT BLIND and you know that color red does not exist.

Is it (A) or (B)?

You could not say that you are BLIND and color red does not exist. That is level 0 thinking.

The best that you can say is you are BLIND and you DO NOT KNOW whether color red exists. Only in that case, you reach level 1. You know that you know nothing.

1) You either know or do not know Zen.

2) You could choose to believe that Zen is useless without knowing anything about Zen.

What do you choose??

By the way, this the attractiveness of Zen. It forces you to THINK BETTER.

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Jan 2 2013, 02:56 PM

Where to learn zen?

seriously ?? you guys are over doing it !! it should be a free flow session of speaking your mind but from what i have read here? you guys are creating a general rule on what philosophy is about .. a cloudy guideline ..

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.

thanks man for the "praise" and good luck with everything!

lol really lol.

i just came back from my extended holiday and believe you me, when i was in langkawi i truly and well laughed my ass off reading the passionate proses that is the philosophy of deadlocks or as we shall henceforth name it deadlockism.

in deadlockism, you shall not conduct any research. read but keep it to a minimal. to be curious and eager to delve deeper into a subject would render the reader morally corrupt. furthermore, when asked about a certain subject, feel free to blow your own trumpet and build castles in the sky... who cares if the foundations of the arguments are hollow! at least people see that you are passionate and opinionated! therefore, in deadlockism, he who makes the most "noise" wins.

p.s: deadlockism may seem like a short definition to the proverb "empty vessels make the most noise". nay. at least vessels have its use. lets not desecrate such a fine household item shall we

p.p.s: it's so obvious u have no clue whatsoever, deadlocks. but okay, i commend u for being so stubborn, headstrong about your convictions. man, i believe in real life and away from your keyboard warring ways, you're pretty much a difficult person. i hope your gf/wife has a better time than i do trying to talk some sense to u. god bless your woman's soul, she sacrificed her own happiness for yours and this daily performance of miracles of extreme tolerance to mental torture makes her second only to jesus in terms of unconditional love towards a fellow human bean. she is both a saint and a martyr.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Jan 8 2013, 01:11 AM

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

May I ask, “What is an example of love something at a VICARIOUS level, especially with philosophy?”

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

Thanks Deadlocks! Your examples are valid, I'm kind of getting what you are trying to say. But, how exactly are you equating the attempt to read something with love something at a VICARIOUS level? And in an interesting way, how does one truly understand what is real and what is true? Ultimately, at what extend can we know the nature of reality?

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

Is that really an example of sarcasm? Probably that's your sarcastic joke. Perhaps you remember that you gave us an inkling of what VICARIOUS love is, and so I just want to learn more about the meaningful part. By the way, it's always raining when I get there.

hey man stop crying like a baby with your so called "ad hominem" attacks. if u can dish it out yourself, you can handle it.

personally speaking, as one consistently reads philosophy, he is exposed to a wide array of ideas, which could seem at first overwhelming to the mind. in this instance, there is a need to take notes on the book he reads, at each page he will deconstruct the various arguments and its logical flow, such logics can be "simplified" in having "true: premises to arrive at a sound conclusion, i.e., 2 (premise) + 1 (premise) = 3 (conclusion); therefore, the idea of 2 and the idea of 1 makes the idea of 3. u get the picture, there is a logical flow to 3.

as for your statements, they are often, "you lack morality in your statements, you are insecure, etc". okay then, please explain, "what is morals" or at least your position as to which school of thought do u adhere to. this way, it would've been possible for me to actually reply you. but no, not only did u not explain what kind of a moralist are you, u merely brushed it off as a "common sense" thing to you. my question is, where is the premise? how did u arrive at such a conclusion? is there a logical flow? no. so yeah i don't see your arguments to even want to bother answering you. why? it's just plain pointless.

oh yea btw deadlockism is merely a summary of your system of philosophy. if you find it utterly ridiculous, don't blame me.

yeah sure u believe in the quotes u read. u read the crust of it but never understanding its deeper meaning.

i'm sure u will hate me for telling you this but the answer lies in "platonic forms". dear god u might think, more reading???

by reading for 5 minutes this foundation/basics of which philosophy is built upon, that being the "platonic forms" you will know why reading about the deeds of heroes, admiring beauty, the feeling of love, etc is a universal thing.

haih deadlocks ahh deadlocks... your questions are goodla. but if u actually read and understand as u claimed you wouldn't have asked such questions. haih, i expected more of u. all your questions are mere tautologies. they are all but the same thing repeated over and over again.

Materazzi,

http://www.101zenstories.com/

Try this to start...

Deadlocks,

<< That isn't ZEN. That's just a coward's way of living by attempting to escape from the existence of reality.>>

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

You admitted that you BLIND. You DO NOT KNOW Zen. And, you DO NOT KNOW how to transcend DUALITY.

So, how could you tell what is and isn't Zen??

You just simply DO NOT KNOW.

Unless and until you FULLY ADMIT that you DO NOT KNOW. You cannot learn anything. You are still stuck at DUALITY. You are at level 0. You do not know that you know nothing.

http://www.101zenstories.com/index.php?story=1

Dreamer

P.S.: To escape from or go to something is to ASSUME that something is good or bad. Now, if nothing is good or bad, WHY there is a need to escape from or go to to begin with?? It simply is.

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Jan 8 2013, 03:24 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

Papa and Diloc’s Example: A Few Sandwiches

Papa: “I’m hungry. What is there to eat?”

Diloc: “There were a few sandwiches left over from dinner last night. I put them in the fridge.”

Papa: “I can’t find them. I only ate three this afternoon. Where are the rest?”

Diloc: “Oh, I think that’s about all there were, three or so.”

Papa: “I thought you said there were a few!”

Diloc: “Yeah, you know, a few, three or so.”

Papa: “What?! Everyone knows ‘a few’ means at least five or six. Now what am I supposed to eat?”

------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if you’ve ever noticed people have different definitions of words. Kind of like everyone speaks their own unique dialect of their language. In fact, linguistic experts call this idiosyncratic dialect an idiolect and everyone’s is different. Perhaps noticing what this boils down to is that everyone is speaking a different language, all the time.

You already know we don’t usually notice we’re speaking different languages. So that it’s almost as if the differences are so subtle that we think we have communicated successfully. Nevertheless, when two people have different definitions for a word in their two separate idiolects, then they may misunderstand each other without even realizing that a misunderstanding has occurred.

in this dialogue ill show u why precision is important in language.

papa: hey deadlocks i hear that you are an expert in antique books. i want to buy a couple of antique books. can u order them for me?

deadlocks: yeah i am a connoisseur of fine and rare antique books with much experience in this business. sure ill help u out, how many u want. i have cashflow problems myself so can u be precise?

papa: a couple will do.

*deadlock goes on to buy 4 antique books.

deadlocks: nah here are your antique books.

papa: but i ordered only a couple!

deadlocks: what do u mean?

papa: a couple means two. as in two lovers make a couple, do u get it?

deadlocks: *** nia ma chao hai.... what am i supposed to do with the rest? i thought a couple meant a few or 4 or 5.

papa: go check the dictionary

deadlocks: but in my experience it means a few 4 or 5.

papa: go check the dictionary

deadlocks: you lowlife scum u screwed me of my business.

papa: go check the dictionary, u did this to yourself.

deadlocks: what do u mean i did this to myself, all my years of business a couple always is a few, 4 or 5. how can u say its different now. anyway, when i talk to people, this is what i always mean... so u must have misunderstood me. u are the guilty party.

papa: i use the dictionary definition of "couple" so i will only pick up two antique books. the rest i have no need for them. sorry!

deadlocks: you should have said 2 then instead of a couple!

papa: when i said a couple it was clear in itself no? i assumed that in running a business, you would clarify any doubt that u might have onto the client! you could have asked me to be precise if you didn't know.

deadlock: but i know a couple means a few, 4 or 5.

papa: which is the wrong definition...

and so on and so forth...


-------------------

do u get it now why it is important to know the definition of a word that we communicate? it is important for a variety of reasons, trade, academic stuff, organisation, etc.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Jan 8 2013, 11:09 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

hahaha deadlockism at its best!

obviously u have no clue at all about platonic forms but yet u decided to make it all up. very nice, that just proved theory correct about deadlockism. again, in philosophy, you need to give evidence to justify a claim and this is yet another evidence in my arsenal of proofs.

p.s: in deadlockism, you shall not conduct any research. read but keep it to a minimal. to be curious and eager to delve deeper into a subject would render the reader morally corrupt. furthermore, when asked about a certain subject, feel free to blow your own trumpet and build castles in the sky... who cares if the foundations of the arguments are hollow! at least people see that you are passionate and opinionated! therefore, in deadlockism, he who makes the most "noise" wins.

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