Philosophy? - Page 4

kblair7 · 12-27-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainpolice

Haha. That wouldn't have to be argued if there were not people who hold metaphysical and epistemological views that deny the existance of an objective reality. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who do seem to think that "life is an illusion" or that reality is a product of our thoughts, so epistemological objectivists such as myself have to waste our time addressing them.

Well my only argument with your people is the contextual syllogism---questionable results...

kblair7 · 12-27-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

You continue to refer to yourself in third person so I doubt you've read much philosophy beyond Calvin & Hobbs.

lol...I was wondering why he was doing that...

Sean · 12-27-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kblair7

lol...I was wondering why he was doing that...

I was wondering if anyone would ever actually get those references.

kblair7 · 12-27-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

I was wondering if anyone would ever actually get those references.

Well there is only SO much work a person can do in day before they have to take a cartoon break

Environment Man · 12-27-2007, 03:52 PM

It is now. It is always. It will be...........................Environment Man

Mike D. · 12-28-2007, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

You continue to refer to yourself in third person so I doubt you've read much philosophy beyond Calvin & Hobbs.

Hey, leave Calvin and Hobbes out of it...

Environment Man · 12-28-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Hey, leave Calvin and Hobbes out of it...

Mike D he just put those names out there. He knew nothing about there philosphies. I posited their positions and he ran for cover.

nroberts · 12-28-2007, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Environment Man

Hobbes' Leviathan speaks of motion, imagination, etc. Ultimately his philosophy was crap.

Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" spoke of sensation, perception, intuition, etc. But Locke was deep for he believed in God and included God in his writings and equations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Environment Man

Mike D he just put those names out there. He knew nothing about there philosphies. I posited their positions and he ran for cover.

You "posited" their positions, huh?

I just don't see it. The only position you seem to have shown is that Locke believed in God. The rest is nonsense.

"...ultimately his philosophy was crap," is your opinion, not Hobbes's position. Neither is your claim that he spoke of motions and imagination. I'd bet that between the two of us, I know more about the concepts in Leviathan than you do...and I've yet to read it (I know it by the people that cite it). What is the ultimate topic in that treatise? What is that picture all about on the front? Can you answer these questions?

Hobbes's work may or may not be "crap", and Locke may or may not be brilliant by comparison, but your assertions here, your explanations of their positions, are completely empty; there is, quite honestly, nothing here. Furthermore you've only shown, yet again, that your entire basis for agreeing or disagreeing with everything someone says is their belief in God. So again you show that even if you DID read all the philosophers you rattled off earlier...no way in hell did you actually reflect on their philosophy or understand most, if anything, of what they said.

Environment Man · 12-28-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nroberts

You "posited" their positions, huh?

I just don't see it. The only position you seem to have shown is that Locke believed in God. The rest is nonsense.

"...ultimately his philosophy was crap," is your opinion, not Hobbes's position. Neither is your claim that he spoke of motions and imagination. I'd bet that between the two of us, I know more about the concepts in Leviathan than you do...and I've yet to read it (I know it by the people that cite it). What is the ultimate topic in that treatise? What is that picture all about on the front? Can you answer these questions?

Hobbes's work may or may not be "crap", and Locke may or may not be brilliant by comparison, but your assertions here, your explanations of their positions, are completely empty; there is, quite honestly, nothing here. Furthermore you've only shown, yet again, that your entire basis for agreeing or disagreeing with everything someone says is their belief in God. So again you show that even if you DID read all the philosophers you rattled off earlier...no way in hell did you actually reflect on their philosophy or understand most, if anything, of what they said.

Oh I reflected on those pimps aplenty. And all I really found was street walking philosophy. I reject Hobbes and accept Locke because of their respective postulations vis-a-vis God. Think Mike Huckabee. Hobbes was one of those self worshippers who thinks his words are gospel. You strike me as that type too.

And yes, I 'posited their position' and reject Hobbes as a street walking pimp.

Comicsartist · 12-28-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Environment Man

Oh I reflected on those pimps aplenty. And all I really found was street walking philosophy. I reject Hobbes and accept Locke because of their respective postulations vis-a-vis God. Think Mike Huckabee. Hobbes was one of those self worshippers who thinks his words are gospel. You strike me as that type too.

And yes, I 'posited their position' and reject Hobbes as a street walking pimp.

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

Here we have eman, who thinks his words are gospel too...

12-27-2007, 03:52 PM	#35 (permalink)
Environment Man Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Catalina Island Posts: 19,983 Thanks: 0 Thanked 37 Times in 33 Posts	It is now. It is always. It will be...........................Environment Man
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode