The Couch

A revolution in thought

Comments on A revolution in thought

peacegirl
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 39
#76 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/17/11 - 3:24 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
"Sorry you missed out on a very important discovery."

Only accessible by way of 'reading the book', it seems.

Lessans and Rafael (if you're not both or either) need a better spokesperson... whatever

Yes, I'm sure you read certain philosphers before giving your opinion of their positions.

#

"can you imagine a philosophy teacher critiquing a well-known philosopher without carefully reading his work?"

Probably not, but then Lessans and Rafael aren't well-known philosophers, are they?


Please don't include me in this. Lessans is not well known, but he will become famous one day.

[quote]Two unknown names attached to (my assessment admittedly based on scanning, not reading, two chapters) a dodgy 500 pages that I'm expected to read first, then discuss later.

A reminder: YOU came to the forum looking for an audience...to capture said audience you gotta do more than say "read about this very important discovery!"


I know I came here for an audience, but it was a mistake. Forums are not the right way to go.

Where's my incentive to devote myself to wading through 500 pages of *badly written material?


I don't know. I've tried to impress you, but I guess I failed.

You offered no incentive, dangled no bait.


I guess the possibility of achieving world peace isn't enough.

And since MY life seems to be moving along nicely without the 'wisdom' of Lessans and Rafael to buoy me: I can only assume that what they (you) have to offer is not worth the effort.


I guess not. But if your child was at war, I think you would have a different attitude.

Hell: it doesn't even seem to be worth YOUR effort since you promote, but will not summarize, the work.

*shrug*


Been there, done that, and it doesn't work.

As you will and like, Peacegirl... smiling face



*the book needs substantial editing: for length and style...just sayin'...*shrug*


Next time, you can write it. grin
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#77 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/17/11 - 5:17 PM:

peacegirl wrote:

Philosophy forums in general have not served me well probably because the book needs to be read first and no one is willing to do that. It then turns nasty. I mean, seriously, can you imagine a philosophy teacher critiquing a well-known philosopher without carefully reading his work? I should have realized that you can't bring a book to a discussion group because it is not a book club.


It's common sense.

If I want to discuss the work of some philosopher I will at least present hesh main thesis and open it up for discussion. And if I'm keen I may add some pertinent quotes and page references so that readers can go and find the source directly and assess it to their liking.

But I'm not going to gain much ground by saying 'Kant is right about everything. Please just read his three Critiques and you will see for yourself. It. Nuff' said.'

But LOL, we couch-bound folk are also part of the problem, since some of us can't resist making comments when a simple 'sure thanks for the link, end of story' would do.

8)
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#78 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/17/11 - 5:30 PM:

"some of us can't resist making comments when a simple 'sure thanks for the link, end of story' would do"

'True,' says a chief offender... wink
peacegirl
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 39
#79 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/17/11 - 6:25 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:


It's common sense.

If I want to discuss the work of some philosopher I will at least present hesh main thesis and open it up for discussion. And if I'm keen I may add some pertinent quotes and page references so that readers can go and find the source directly and assess it to their liking.

But I'm not going to gain much ground by saying 'Kant is right about everything. Please just read his three Critiques and you will see for yourself. It. Nuff' said.'


But it would at least give you a basis for your criticism.

"monk" wrote:
But LOL, we couch-bound folk are also part of the problem, since some of us can't resist making comments when a simple 'sure thanks for the link, end of story' would do.

8)


Right, I wish people would have just gone to the link and if they wanted to read it, fine, and if not, they would have deleted it. Sticking around at this point is sheer masochism.
peacegirl
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 39
#80 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/17/11 - 6:27 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
"some of us can't resist making comments when a simple 'sure thanks for the link, end of story' would do"

'True,' says a chief offender... wink


I only wish!!!! shaking head
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#81 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/17/11 - 9:34 PM:

The end result--we do what we want and only what we want no matter what we do, because whatever we do, we want to do it, that is, we will ourselves to do it.

If we choose something 'bad' it's because we want it; if we choose something 'good' it's because we want it. If we choose to be compelled by outside forces (e.g. the gunman) it's because we want it. If we choose to ignore the gunman and assert our will it's because we want it.

We can't do anything except what we want. IOW, we will what we will.

And worse yet, our will is fixed by law to act in only one direction.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#82 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/17/11 - 9:36 PM:

Here's a nice page that details the views of modern philosophers on free will (Aquinas to Kant). Unfortunately, while Kant's 'solution' is perhaps rightly considered ingenious, it doesn't prove freedom. It only says that we must assume freedom.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DPF.CHAP30.HTM

8)
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#83 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/18/11 - 5:58 AM:

link wrote:
However, Locke means something more than just freedom from restriction or compulsion regarding one's preferences. We are also not free if our potential as well as actual choices are restricted, as in Locke's example of a man locked into a room in which he prefers to stay. The man desires to stay in the room, is able to do so, and is thus free by Hobbes's definition, but the man does not have the power to leave the room and is thus not free according to Locke


A very good link Monk. thumb up As a matter of synchronicities, yesterday, we got locked inside our house...hahahahaha laughing
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#84 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/18/11 - 6:04 AM:

link wrote:
Finally, there is Kant's meaning of freedom as spontaneous originality, as the ability to initiate a new causal series. For Kant, freedom is an independence of the will of motivations, character, and external causes. It is more than just the power to choose. Freedom is the power to fulfill our moral oughts (ought implies can), to will as reason directs, to be a first cause of events.


I have not read this definition earlier. This impressed me deeply.

peacegirl
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 39
#85 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/18/11 - 7:04 AM:

Monk2400 wrote:
The end result--we do what we want and only what we want no matter what we do, because whatever we do, we want to do it, that is, we will ourselves to do it.

If we choose something 'bad' it's because we want it; if we choose something 'good' it's because we want it. If we choose to be compelled by outside forces (e.g. the gunman) it's because we want it. If we choose to ignore the gunman and assert our will it's because we want it.

We can't do anything except what we want. IOW, we will what we will.

And worse yet, our will is fixed by law to act in only one direction.

8)


You are not understanding YET. I hope you change your challenging attitude because it is getting in the way of true understanding.
This is not to say that you can't ask questions, but please try not to tell me that this is what he means. You are off base entirely.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#86 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/18/11 - 9:38 AM:

You are not understanding YET. I hope you change your challenging attitude because it is getting in the way of true understanding.
This is not to say that you can't ask questions, but please try not to tell me that this is what he means. You are off base entirely.


I'm afraid that, if you're looking for blind acceptance, you've quite possibly come to the worst place on the internet.
peacegirl
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 39
#87 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/18/11 - 11:55 AM:

smokinpristiformis wrote:


I'm afraid that, if you're looking for blind acceptance, you've quite possibly come to the worst place on the internet.


I don't expect blind acceptance. Why do you think I am trying so hard to explain this discovery? I just don't want to leave without giving it my all, knowing I could have done better at explaining it.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#88 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/18/11 - 12:13 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:


I have not read this definition earlier. This impressed me deeply.



Yeah, this is what I'm talking about with the idea of spontaneous action. But I'm also thinking of the kind of spontaneous acts that arise from the original mind in Zen. OTOH, one might just as well use that example to demonstrate determinism--given that such acts arise from the nature of the mind itself following its own course without conscious interference.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#89 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/18/11 - 12:15 PM:

peacegirl wrote:


I don't expect blind acceptance. Why do you think I am trying so hard to explain this discovery? I just don't want to leave without giving it my all, knowing I could have done better at explaining it.


Then do like I suggest and take it to a new thread and break down the arguments. No philosophy prof would accept 'read the book' as an answer to a homework assignment. If you know the content so well, it should be no trouble to distill it for the benefit of our fine community.

Right now you're like a door-to-door salesman ringing the bell at dinner time.

8)
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#90 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/18/11 - 12:54 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:


Yeah, this is what I'm talking about with the idea of spontaneous action. But I'm also thinking of the kind of spontaneous acts that arise from the original mind in Zen. OTOH, one might just as well use that example to demonstrate determinism--given that such acts arise from the nature of the mind itself following its own course without conscious interference.

8)


Indeed. I have read many times about 'Free will available to the witness/drashta sense', which is, similar to the Zen mind. Creative power is available with spontaneous action. zen
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#91 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/18/11 - 1:56 PM:

"...take it to a new thread...break down the arguments"

NOT holding my breath... wink
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#92 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/18/11 - 3:20 PM:

peacegirl, i started a new topic in the thinking spot, having to do with deliverance from evil:

http://www.thecouchforum.com/comments.php?id=1657

please feel free to share your thoughts, if you like
peacegirl
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 39
#93 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/18/11 - 3:48 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:


Then do like I suggest and take it to a new thread and break down the arguments. No philosophy prof would accept 'read the book' as an answer to a homework assignment. If you know the content so well, it should be no trouble to distill it for the benefit of our fine community.

Right now you're like a door-to-door salesman ringing the bell at dinner time.

8)


I don't see where I sound like a door to door salesman. I'm trying to explain this knowledge to you in the best way I know how, but you have to help me by keeping an open mind or else you will keep reverting back to the old definition, and telling me I'm wrong.
KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
#94 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/04/11 - 4:31 PM:

-sigh-

I have tried to keep an open mind about this thread and the book involved in it. However I must admit that I have been able to read zero philosophy books with the exception of overviews. These overviews only showed me:
a) that people have had the same thoughts as me before
b) the terms used to describe my previous thoughts
c) that overviews are the only philosophy books I find worth reading today

I do not plan on reading this book. Sorry. I do not believe that reading books on philosophy creates philosophers. I was a philosopher before I had even learned of the term 'philosopher'. I ponder. To me, if I ever stopped pondering and thought I had the answers, I would cease to be a philosopher.

Determinism, while an interesting topic to think about, is not a motivator for anything helpful. If I'm working with the right term then your saying: I could be born an atheist and doomed to go to hell because God created me an atheist. (I'm not atheist in actuality)

Doesn't it seem rather pointless for a rigid determinist to come to a philosophy forum? I mean philosopher are going to question things... not just blindly accept them. This goes for anyone rigid. We want idea and questions to ponder, not a book to read!

I don't know about the rest of you, but for someone to come to a philosophy forum and advertise a book and not tell why other than it's worth reading and will change my life... it seems like someone's trying to convert my poor skeptic self! I like myself the way I am thanks, reading or not reading a book will likely not change that. So I'll save myself the boredom. Thanks!
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#95 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/04/11 - 6:43 PM:

KN wrote:
This goes for anyone rigid.

peacegirl may be a determinist (or maybe not, i don't know), but calling her rigid is an attack against the person. no ad hominem please, thank you smiling face
KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
#96 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/05/11 - 6:49 AM:

Ah... sorry. To both of you.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#97 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 04/05/11 - 9:56 AM:

no worries thumb up
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.