If you are interested in discussing the article in question, or my response to the article in question, I am on board.Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:47 amAre you here suggesting that some one posted some things that were not relative to the article mentioned above?owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:41 pmInstead of a discussion on the merits, or demerits, of the article in question ‘Humans the Believing Animals’ which I critiqued in a post: Mon. 2/13, 4:21 pm, there are instead arguments arising here between those who post, that are not relative to the article in question; to its merits or demerits.
If yes, and if you would like to continue this discussion, then who were they, EXACTLY, and what were they talking about EXACTLY?
And, does what you just posted here really have ANY thing to with the article above also anyway?
Was the previous post in question, which you wrote, at 4:21 pm or 8:21 pm?
Is what you just posted here related to the topic title and the article in question? Or, is it just another form of disruption?owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:41 pm This is disappointing. It appears that people who have no interested in philosophy, whatsoever, are posting here because they have nothing else to do, or they enjoy being disrupters. As in social media in general it is a problem.
And, if you would like to ACCUSE some people, of some thing/s here, then I suggest you POINT those people OUT DIRECTLY, and HIGHLIGHT the specific thing/s that you are ACCUSING them of doing.
See, CLAIMING that "another" has absolutely NO interest AT ALL in 'philosophy', WHATSOEVER, absolutely ANY one can do, and do back to you, AS WELL.
If you would like to have a so-called philosophical discussion' about the believing animal, that 'you', adult human beings are, then what does a 'philosophical discussion' entail, to you, EXACTLY?owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:41 pm It requires monitors to disrupt the disrupters, otherwise those who are interested in philosophical discussion, not in cat fights, must look for alternate venues.
See, my interpretation of 'philosophical discussion' might be VERY DIFFERENT to yours, and "others". And, so some one could ACCUSE you of having NO interest, WHATSOEVER, in philosophy.
Look, that 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written are so-called 'believing animals' is IRREFUTABLE. FULL STOP.owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:41 pm As philosophy’s popularity or relevance, is not great, its venues, unfortunately, are few.
And, one of the biggest reasons WHY it takes 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, SO LONG to be able to just DECIPHER between what IS IRREFUTABLY True FROM what IS NOT is because 'you' are STILL just in, and so literally STILL just STUCK IN, the BELIEVING and ASSUMING stage of evolution, itself.
WHEN 'you' BECOME Truly OPEN, AGAIN, and REMAINING Truly OPEN, THEN 'you' WILL SEE and KNOW WHY BEING and REMAINING the BELIEVING animal IS HOLDING 'you' BACK.
If you are, instead, interested only in meaningless personalized argumentation, I am not on board. I have better things to do than engaged in pointless argumentations.
A difference of opinion on an article is to be expected. We all perceive the world from our unique personal perspective. That is what makes discussion meaningful and worthwhile. So discuss what your take on the article is, do you agree or disagree with the premise? And if so, why?
The choice is yours, so decide. It is much more rewarding to have a philosophical discussion on a topic than making personal attacks on all and sundry. Try it, you might like it.
Discuss the article ‘Humans the Believing Animals’ or take your non-relevant, to the article, personal attacks, and pointless arguments elsewhere.