| Subject: Boxing |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/22/02 8:47pm
In reply to:
Primordial
's message, "You're not playing fairly, you intellectual behemoth!" on 02/22/02 8:12pm
>>
>>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?
Not everyone lives inside any box. Some are dead within it.
>
>
>>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.
My feeling is that all thought must neccessarily originate within logical concepts, though they may not be sound ones. In fact, many delusional people build worlds on one premise, but an unsound one.
>
> 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?
Perhaps "shackled" would be a better idea. Not all ideas are logical. How can it be one o'clock and two o'clock in the same given instant on the planet earth? Logic doesn't permit this. Relativism does.
>
> 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.
Agreed, Einstein was an original thinker, but he built on foundations grounded in logic; observations based in nature, the real world, or for argument's sake, "the box". His equations were built on assumptions, allbeit assumptions he was not sure were correct. The math validated his notions of what he had seen in "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.
I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps you should show me where my scale is, and by scale, I presume you mean measurement. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> Furthermore, would a short sighted, delusional
>male with the code name "Damoclese" be found inside
>the box contributing to a philosophical forum?
Perhaps, how would I ever know what I could find in or out of the box with certainty if I exist within it?
> Furthermore, would a short sighted, delusional
>male with the code name "Damoclese" NOT be found
>inside the box contributing to a philosophical forum?
See above. Perhaps, perhaps not.
>
> 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?
I'd say they must necessarily be both, or they'd be dead. Disobey the logical reasons for not jumping off a cliff, and when you hit the bottom you'll be in for a surprise.
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 