| Subject: You're not playing fairly, you intellectual behemoth! |
Author:
Primordial
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/22/02 8:12pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "I hope I won't be graded" on 02/21/02 10:17pm
>>
>>Question 1. Are you a reasonably thinking person who
>>exists inside the box?
>
>I don't think this is quite a good question. Being too
>far outside the box wouldn't let you live within it.
Foul. Everyone lives inside the box. Or I request clarification....are you implying that the mutation is so "out there" in thought, that they can't function in the box?
>If (logic) is the inside of the box, therein you must
>reside for pragmatic reasons while on earth.
Foul. "Thought" exists inside the box...thinking does not imply "logic". Dictionary's are used for defining terms, not concepts; thus, they are allowed in this experiment (although ontological debate is hoped to be avoided).....and logic is not mentioned when defining "think"ing.
However,
>it is possible to be too devoted to logic, because if
>the world were always as easy logic, the conclusions
>would always naturally follow.
I could foul you on the syntax error, but I think I catch your drift. I agree with the latter half of your statement. What about this "too devoted to logic" idea. Devoted? Correct choice of words?
So, my answer to the
>question is that I am both and neither. Too far one
>way you are delusional, too far another and you are
>short sighted.
Foul. Fence sitter! I argue against delusional. Albert Einstein was not delusional and if he was....he still contributed thought that was outside the box and advanced the progress existing inside the box. I assert you have applied a "scale" to thought that is unnecessary and not resonable to the advancement of thought inside the box.
Furthermore, would a short sighted, delusional male with the code name "Damoclese" be found inside the box contributing to a philosophical forum?
Furthermore, would a short sighted, delusional male with the code name "Damoclese" NOT be found inside the box contributing to a philosophical forum?
>> Shaw:(I'm paraphrasing)
>>'A reasonably thinking man expects to adapt to nature.
>>An unreasonably thinking man expects nature to adapt
>>to him. Thus, all progress is made by unreasonable
>>men.'
>>
>>Question 2. What application can be made using the
>>above quote to question 1?
>
>Reasonably thinking people are confined to the box of
>nature, unreasonably thinking men expect the box of
>nature to conform to their notions? Objectivity versus
>relativity? The applications could be wide and
>far-reaching.
The above comment is arguably poetry. However, and you knew it was coming, if for nothing else but arguments sake: Foul.
You offered up the terms delusional and short sighted earlier and failed to apply your logic here: now you offer up the idea that unreasonably thinking men who expect nature to form to their ideals are perceived as relativistic. The latter I agree with and may I say, a stunning application of knowledge here!; are these individuals delusional or short sighted or neither, considering the metaphoric box?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 