I don't take offence. I will post about that next perhaps.
It is good that such learned minds can define the boundaries of what is acceptable to discuss and in which areas people should remain. It is also good to build a view of the world upon the shoulders of others. Perhaps a few quotes from the master's would be the best way to illustrate these points I am missing or can add depth to a childish argument.
Just in case you haven't realised yet, I generally write for myself based on my own thoughts and for my own enjoyment. If one from the school of the 'Great Conversation' comes across and finds it junk. Fair enough. Someone else may chance upon it and find something that leads them to a great personal discovery. Fair enough.
Again, if you haven't read any of my other stuff, I care very little about the past and even less for the labels and limitations people put on myself or others. It generally leads to fundamentalism and division and of course, various types of violence.
And a side note, Philosophy by definition means love of wisdom. It is not bound to the musings of any particular group nor excluded from any individual.
Sorry for this philosophical post not living up to your expectaions of what philosophy is.
No one imagines that they don't have to care about the past if they want to learn how to build an engine or an airplane, cure a case of tuberculosis or create a fine whiskey. In areas where the results are clear and unambiguous, everyone understands the value of learning from people who have already been through all of this. But somehow they think it is different in philosophy. In philosophy they think that no one else has anything of value to tell them, but oddly enough, that they have something of value to tell others.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So far, rather than add anything of value to this conversation (of which is apparently below your skill level) or leave it, you have added your definition of philosophy and how this low-level false philosophy is an affront to the 'real' philosophy students.
There has been no argument put forward as to why the position presented is false. Just an ambiguous statement.
What I have often found is those that argue the points learned from others rarely have independent thoughts themselves. In the case of any 'Great conversation', they can merely spectate. Personally, I prefer to play in the lower leagues rather than sit in the stands. Perhaps I'll work my way up the ranks, perhaps not. But having skin in the game makes life more interesting.
I am not well read though. Just a dude that thinks a lot. Maybe all of my thoughts have been thought before and there is not a unique perspective among them. But at least for me, most of them are mine. I am always happy for input from others including criticism but very little time for the dogma of academics or fulfilling the expectations of others.
...And there is no such thing as a 'fine whiskey' to gin drinker. ;)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit