The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 4) |
| Author | Comment |
Kevin
 Jan 5, 08 - 1:46 AM |
More of Richard's Realism and Rationalism
Re: Richard on Rational & Realistic Thought and "On Problems" Name: Richard Date Posted: Jan 4, 08 - 1:26 PM Message: Kevin, The subject of light was injected by you to demonstrate an error in my proposition that "Science develops knowledge of material/concrete things and the CONDITIONS related to things". REPLY: That is right. Light, or more correctly, Electromagnetic Energy, originally called, I think Gaussian Waves, then radio waves (Marconi et alia), then X-rays, then Radar, then electromagnetic spectra has been the major "stuff" of 20th century science. Do you know how a spectrophotometer works, Richard? Or a computer axialized tomogram? Or a Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine, Rich? I doubt it, Boyo, since you were born about 1936. RICHARD: Even after I pointed out that I consider LIGHT to be a CONDITION of the concrete/material SUN, you continue to ground your refutal argument on your claim that I am thinking of LIGHT as a material thing. REBUTTAL: I never claimed that. I told you that you had refuted me with a candle. RICHARD: I have noticed (as Ivo also noted) this tactic of yours of injecting erroneous assumptions to support arguments. Usually, I just ignore such tactics but maybe it would help you to recognize how frivolously you construct your arguments. REPLY: O.K. Show me Richard. You like that word CONSTRUCT don't you? Your assertion is that KEVIN INJECTS ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS TO SUPPORT ARGUMENTS. Now, go ahead and prove my erroneous assumptions, quote RICHARD: Another erroneous assumption of your is that Ivo refused to talk to me? Quite the opposite, Ivo and I were engaged with each other long before you showed up, but, like you, Ivo is a hardcore believer and that got old after awhile. REPLY: Yes, you became engaged on this list in 1997. It is now 2007. And, somewhere, on the old list, he mentioned something about not engaging with you any more. I can't find that post. But after you started "chuckling" about my replies to Smallmind, you may have had some sort of reconciliation since Ivo apologized to you, quote: Subj: e_Main Message - Re: host Date: 28/04/07 7:01:08 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: webmaster@radicalacademy.com Sender: webmaster@radicalacademy.com To: PaedoSocrates@aol.com Richard, Just in order that there be no misunderstanding: I sometimes think that Dr Dolhenty himself is SmallMind and that he introduced this figure in order to sharpen our ideas. But if so, why didn’t we achieve anything? Right! I have been too harsh to you in the past and I apologise for that, but I do not see why your project could not be carried on on this Forum. If only SmallMind were to divulge her real intentions in spending her time at a Forum devoted to classical realism while, as a Cartesian, she disagrees with classical realism. Ivo MESSAGE = http://radicalacademy.com/cgi-bin/eboard30/index.cgi?board=Main&message=4781 TO WHICH YOU REPLIED, quote: Subj: e_Main Message - Re: host Date: 28/04/07 9:29:20 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: webmaster@radicalacademy.com Sender: webmaster@radicalacademy.com To: PaedoSocrates@aol.com Ivo, I can assure you that SmallMind is not Dr Dolhenty. Apologia not necessary. I have always admired your organizational and writing ability but wished you would think more independent of your reading. MESSAGE = http://radicalacademy.com/cgi-bin/eboard30/index.cgi?board=Main&message=4797 COMMENT: You like people's thoughts to be INDEPENDENT of their READING, don't you Richard? That is probably because your THOUGHTS are never AFFECTED by what other people write, as you DEMONSTRATE, below, quote RICHARD: Another ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION is that I am young about sixteen. Wrong again, I am seventy-two. KEVIN (previous post): I am in a terrible CONDITION as a consequence of the aforementioned CONDITION which is --- utter ignorance of your SCIENCE TEACHER and your AGE. SOCRATIC QUESTIONS: (1) How can a person, such as I am, who professes UTTER IGNORANCE of either your SCIENCE TEACHER or your AGE, make the "erroneous assumption" that you "are about 16", Richard? Don't you KNOW what UTTER IGNORANCE means? RICHARD: As far as my favorite scientist goes, I don’t have one but why you must think having one or not having one has anything to do with anything only you can know. Your eagerness to win an argument by ejecting erroneous assumptions is beginning to get old too. REBUTTAL: You are the "erroneous assumption injector". RICHARD: Now that I understand you better, I am losing hope that we can engage in a logical dialogue with be purpose of furthering philosophical knowledge. REPLY: Liars don't dialogue. They just lie. RICHARD: You demonstrate an excellent example to support my belief that “An education in Philosophy destroys a persons potential ability to think rationally” REPLY: My education is in SCIENCE, Mr. liar. K |
|
Kevin
Jan 5th, 2008 - 2:36 AM |
Re: More of Richard's Realism and Rationalism
When I was a Senior Technologist, in a Clinical Medical Biochemistry Laboratory, we called people like Richard "book cookers". We didn't DIALOGUE with "book-cookers". We didn't debate with them. We didn't discuss either philosophy or science with them. We just FIRED THEM, because "book cookers" in SCIENCE can kill people with their LYING STUPIDITY. Richard must have received his "formal education" in either Used Car Sales or Advertizing and has been saying the IDENTICAL THINGS, with absolutely no support from either SCIENCE or PHILOSOPHY --- meaning actual scientists or philosophers, since the first time I ever heard his BIGOTED MANTRA, quote RICHARD: Subj: e_Main Message - Re: DETACHED Date: 24/04/07 8:45:10 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: webmaster@radicalacademy.com Sender: webmaster@radicalacademy.com To: PaedoSocrates@aol.com I have posted on this forum, off and on, since about late 1997. During this time, I have gotten to know SmallMind and he and I have had dialogue with each other many many times. I like SmallMind but hardly ever have I felt like I knew the meaning of his post. My hat goes off to Kevin and many thanks for the CHUCKLES his post to Small Mind cause. MESSAGE = http://radicalacademy.com; message=4587 COMMENT: Richard likes to CHUCKLE at people. Subj: e_Main Message - Re: DETACHED Date: 24/04/07 9:36:07 PM Mountain Daylight Time Sender: webmaster@radicalacademy.com To: PaedoSocrates@aol.com Yo, Richard. (It's hard to believe we've been at it that long.) MESSAGE = http://radicalacademy.com; message=4589 Subj: e_Main Message - Re: DETACHED Date: 25/04/07 6:42:11 PM Mountain Daylight Time To: PaedoSocrates@aol.com Yes, it is hard to believe we have been at it this long and so little accomplished. The iron grip of Traditional/Academic Philosophy chokes to death all efforts to further Philosophical knowledge. COMMENT: Presently Richard wants to further "philosophical knowledge" by injecting bogus "erroneous assumptions" as CONSTRUCTS into his arguments. Same phrase "further philosophical knowledge" in his last posting. Richard has a "mantra" which he repeats. RICHARD: How ironic can irony be when Traditional Philosophy is stuck in the muck of the nonsensical ideas of early philosophers who would have different ideas if they were still living today? I haven't given up, just biding my time until plan "B" can be implemented. MESSAGE = http://radicalacademy.com; message=4625 COMMENT: Same old tired "mantra". Socrates would have different "ideas" if he lived today. No he wouldn't. He'd still refute those who think THEY KNOW something they DO NOT KNOW, such as Kevin makes the "erroneous assumption" that Richard is about "16". Not a chance, Richard. I guessed you were OLD, but admitted my UTTER IGNORANCE of your AGE --- thus making no "erroneous assumption". I guessed you were old because old people only have a few "ideas" written in "STONE-LIKE-PSYCHES". Aristotle compared the souls, or minds if you will, of children to water. Water doesn't hold writing. They can't learn philosopy. Middle aged men's souls he compared to wax --- both him and Plato. You can write on wax and even erase and write again on wax slates. They may be taught philosophy. But old men's metaphorical "slates" are like GRANITE without wax, according to Aristotle. You have to chisel new IDEAS into such "slates" and always run the risk of SHATTERING their "granite-like-minds". SAME IDEAS, THEN AS NOW, requote Subj: e_Main Message - Re: host Date: 28/04/07 2:52:23 PM Mountain Daylight Time To: PaedoSocrates@aol.com Ivo, My intention is to someday host a Philosophy forum, not that I am particularly qualified, but, I believe the effort would be an interesting challenge/project attempting to move Philosophical knowledge out of the muck of ***senseless ideas it has been stuck in for twenty five centuries.*** I think this can be accomplished by first identifying the problems of Philosophy then solving each problem systematically, in systematic order, and ***unhampered by the ideas*** of those who have failed to solve the problems in the past. The situation that Philosophy is in today is that it has become the accumulation of these failed ideas and thus there is no incentive for Philosophy to discard the ideas it has become. To do so, of course, would destroy Philosophy. My qualification to host such a project is the belief that philosophical problems can be solved like any other problems by recognizing which things and conditions relate to the existence of each other and to the existent of the accomplishment desired. COMMENT: A philosopher can only DESTROY your "mantra", Rich! That may CRACK your GRANITE PSYCHE. Maybe you should try lawn-bowling at your age --- a cruel thing to say. But Socrates, at 70, had a 35 year old psyche. Yours is about 172 --- hard as rock. Kevin |
|
Richard
Jan 5th, 2008 - 7:44 AM |
Re: More of Richard's Realism and Rationalism
Kevin, This could be an erroneous assumption on my part, but your highly agitated emotional state would indicate you are off your medication. If this happens not to be the case, I would suggest you double the dosage. You remind me of a deranged Border Collie insanely nipping at the sheep’s heels for no purpose, driven by its deranged obsession. If you would like to continue our dialogue above the emotional personal level, present a few propositions/statements that you believe reveal the logic on which Philosophy is grounded. If Philosophy is grounded on logic, present the propositions to reveal that logic. |
|
Kevin
Jan 6th, 2008 - 1:50 AM |
Re: More of Richard's Realism and Rationalism
Re: More of Richard's Realism and Rationalism Kevin, This could be an erroneous assumption on my part, but your highly agitated emotional state would indicate you are off your medication. If this happens not to be the case, I would suggest you double the dosage. REPLY: A doctor?!!! Your training is in medicine and hence you can recommend medicine for my brain as well as "medicine" for my soul, such as "dump 25 centuries worth of SENSELESS IDEAS". The argument is called "ad hominem", or irrelevant to you introducing bogus "erroneous assumptions" on my part about your age. You don't like being proved a liar and also called a liar, do you Richard? I never get emotional about liars, Richard --- we simply fired them from our medical department, as I told you in my last post. When I was a much younger man, I used to challenge LIARS to fist-fights. But in those ancient days, there were actual RULES by which fist fights were conducted. These days, no one teaches the Marquis of Queensbury's boxing rules. So "gang-fights" and hitting a guy/gal when s/he is down are normal practices. RICHARD: You remind me of a deranged Border Collie insanely nipping at the sheep’s heels for NO PURPOSE, driven by its deranged obsession. SHORT REPLY: Some junior technologists thought of myself in that way too. They were those who required medication if/when they got fired since it's depressing to become a waitress, waiter or truck driver after being a "supposed scientist". MORE RELEVANTLY: You were, possibly, also a shepherd at one time in your career. Such collies are not "deranged", but have reverted to their wolf-like hunting origins and instincts. Their INSTINCTUAL PURPOSE, is to hamstring the sheep, so the rest of the (non-existent) pack may kill/eat the sheep. True! It is an arguably (not truly) "deranged" condition for a canine shepherd's assistant to exhibit. But an animal must have an INTELLECT in order to be "deranged". That is never the case with a collie. You noticed a more-wolf than dog one. Such animals are not "medicated". That are simply shot or injected which may seem cruel with respect to the dog. But it is actually a kindness with respect to the sheep and to all other well behaved border collies. Your "deranged" border collie reverted to a deeper level instinct (Herd; HAMSTRING; Kill; Eat!) much like a REFUTED ARGUER may go to a deeper instinctual level when his supposed "factual" criticism fails. Supposedly "rational", but metaphorical "heel biters", may become reduced to "ad hominem" attacks after "cleverly" calling people LIARS with complicated phrasings (eg. "injecters of erroneous assumptions" which they have "NOT injected") and then have nothing left except either an apology or an "ad hominem" kind of "heel bite" trick (eg. "double your medication"). IN SUM, it is amusing (rather than emotionally vexing; bogusly "requiring" tranquilization or medication") to me that all your "philosophically" AMATEURISH arguments backfire on you, Rich. A proved False Statement, on your part, followed by a trivial "ad hominem" attack is the irrational equivalent of a "heel biting" border philosopher's way of arguing against a refutation. RICHARD: If you would like to continue our dialogue above the emotional personal level, present a few propositions/statements that you believe reveal the logic on which Philosophy is grounded. REBUTTAL: Lies followed by "ad hominems" are not "dialogue", Richard. So, we're not having a "dialogue"! You have to actually hear what another person says and respond to what they say, in order to "dialogue". I've already written Aristotle's LAW OF THOUGHT to you from THE METAPHYSICS, which is the BASIC AXIOM OF LOGIC, and which I have employed to refute both yourself (who DOES NOT KNOW what he thinks he DOES KNOW) and Ivo (who pretended he DID NOT KNOW, what he DID KNOW --- ie. The CAUSE/S of his COMAS). But that is not "good enough" for you, Richard. To you, it only reflects your thesis that I am stuck in mire of "senseless ideas" from "traditional philosophy". Requote RICHARD: You demonstrate an excellent example to support my belief that “An education in Philosophy destroys a persons potential ability to think rationally" COMMENT: One cannot "dialogue" with a person who has had his LOGIC-potential "destroyed" by being trained in MEDICAL SCIENCE and, later, by reading Aristotle (as introduced to him by Mortimer Jerome Adler) for more than 20 years. I'm an IRRATIONAL-wreck after all that modern and classical education, Richard. Hence, we can't have a "dialogue" and I should be "on medication" for proving that you are a textbook case of trivial fallacies. RICHARD: If Philosophy is grounded on logic, present the propositions to reveal that logic. REPLY: Still deaf, Richard? I've done that! Read Aristotle's AXIOM of thought previously cited --- then try to use it when you "dialogue" (he barked.)! KB |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com