Derrida was tolerable to a point, but then came the reconstructionists whjo after deconstucting an observation to an argument reconstruct the argument into their own observation. Oh the insufferance of the modern mind to colonise all thought!
Derrida murdered argument. Everything gets deconstructed instantly and philosophy is zombie land as a result.
By what means did Derrida commit that crime? Was it anything but ARGUMENTS? Do you realize stating that
"But I don't know why I bother arguing. Derrida murdered argument. Everything gets deconstructed instantly and philosophy is zombie land as a result."
is a kind of ARGUMENT? You can never refute arguments through arguments.[/quote]
Last edited by Bernard on Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
duszek wrote:If I have two apples they are not the same. They are two different apples.
But the apple sort can be the same, for example Cox Orange or Boskop.
Sometimes two different apple sorts can be alike but not the same.
Cox Orange and Rubinetta are alike (similar in taste and shape) but they are not the same.
Would you agree ?
I quite agree with you that 'same' implies more similarity than 'like'. But what I was trying to say was that there is always opposites inherent in likes. Actually,they both play a role in the process of attraction.
Yeah but often when we say that something is opposite to something else the two things are very similar or even indent oval bar just one difference. A rock isn't opposite to a Beethoven concerto, just very different from it characteristically. We could say even that the more different things are to each other the less likely they are to be opposites, which would require us to infer that the less different things are to each other the more likely they are to be opposites.
If I have two sheets of A4 blank paper before me then in what way could they be opposites? They can't be opposite because they are the same, but a sheet of A2 next to a sheet of A4 will be twice as big and therefore in opposition to it size wise. Of the A2 paper keeps changing in characteristics (colour, shape, gets cut up, gets bunt etc) it will become so different as not to be NOTICEABLY opposing, just different.
A simple demonstration of how reduction of differences creates opposites is with the primary colour wheel: red,yellow and blue (and Bill seems to have pre-empted me here with the colourful snakes). If we look at yellow we see two differences from it: blue and red, but if we mix blue and red there will remain only one difference from yellow: purple, which is the opposite to yellow, proof of which is to stare at something very yellow and close your eyes and you will see purple.
windy36 wrote:There can be no such thing as the law of attraction because every action that happens is random. For example I could think and do one thing, and something else in the environment happens opposite of what I am thinking. So what happens in the environment does not always correlate with my thoughts.
Your example doesn't demonstrate why every action is random. We would not have a word such as random if every act was random. If every act was random there would be no acts at all. It's the same if there were only quantum waves of light to produce light and no particles
to produce it. Light would simply not (percievably) exist under those conditions. 'Randomness' is a fundamental (and important) perceptual interpretation we have of the nature of acts, not what they can acquire in terms of meaning and knowledge to us as phenomena and phenomenon. We even create acts.
I am not saying every action is random. For example you can look at a bus schedule and go out at a certain time to catch a bus. It is more likely then not that the bus will come at the certain time then not. But the bus could come at another time proofing the law of attraction is not exactly correct.
The "law of attraction" is the simple idea that how you act will have an effect on the world, taken to an illogical extreme whereby those psycho-social or even purely material effects can be intentional and immediate if you woo hard enough. In other words, just another form of bullshit. The psychological principle is real. The Secret is misunderstandings and lies, and the version most people agree with.
