philosophizing with a hammer...

[SHATOUSHKA]

OMG! that was freakin funny.

faizi had an orgasm--better get a towel.



------------------
General Philosophy

[velocet]

enrique,
The history of ideas provides us with instance after instance of philosopher vs. philosopher. In the Western canon, its referred to as the Great Conversation... though in short lemme say that Smack certainly played a role in the proceedings.

What we have in terms of a name... philosopher... means lover of wisdom, not necessarily "seeker of truth". You see, wisdom FIRST, then the stage is set for researching whether 'truth' is even a thing to be sought. The great minds came up with systems of being in the game as far as aspiring to wisdom, and once got, what the verdict on Truth (with capital T means more) could take the form(s) of.
If need be I can provide details...

SHATOUSHKA,
Thanks for the thread in my honor, but I see that in locking it, you hid behind your evil m0d powers to avoid getting the thrashing you so richly deserve--------->
In the interest of revealing my other BBS haunts, I'll email you the links.
"bungle clone" via philosmack, just so's you know its me...







velocet

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

[enrique1a]

dear velocet:

the "great chat" has certainly involved various philosophers, but that is not to say that socrates was an enemy of sartre, nor that kierkegaard would have sought the friendship of murdoch and/or kant. they sought to illuminate, for themselves and others, Being and Truth -- whether or not they criticized or supported one another's claims.

it is such a great help that you have defined for us the meaning of "philosopher," and i am sure you would agree, after having written it, that it said nothing of enemies, but rather of wisdom. so, philosophers are after wisdom: kierkegaard, sartre, nietzsche, etc., were after wisdom, and the debate between them was one of cooperation and the reciprocal development of theory, as none of these philosophers ever claimed that they'd attained their knowledge (wisdom) in isolation.

which is more important -- being the "One" who is "right," or seeking for the sake of what is sought? . . . i tend to believe that most philosophers subscribe to the latter, which has no need for concern of enemies.

since you know much more of philosophy than the rest of us here, i would like for you to illuminate the topic for us -- i'd like to take you up on that offer of providing further details regarding wisdom -- and not necessarily Truth -- as the primary goal of all philosophers. without meaning to be coy, i feel the opposite is true: wisdom comes after one has sought and found (and/or inadvertently stumbled upon) the experience of truth.

we shall await your response ...

regards,
enrique

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

[SHATOUSHKA]

hmmm....

i am not sure how to respond here without sounding brash. so, if i do so, it is not intentional.

for me--wisdom would be the continual process of question. since this is so, there can never be a point of rest, or belief, or perhaps even truth.

secondly, what is this ellusive TRUTH?

------------------
General Philosophy

[erisesoteric]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SHATOUSHKA:
secondly, what is this ellusive TRUTH? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Coffee is the source of all wonder and joy in the universe.

(OK, butting out now, just couldn't resist that one, sorry!!!)

------------------
Give me an edit button, and I'll moderate the WORLD!!!

The Neil & Neal Show

That's our eris! Shy, reserved, prone to pounding helpless arachnids... ~ 5Cats

[velocet]

e,

Before we proceed, just playing a hunch here,
is your fave philosopher Ayn Rand?



velocet

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