thedoc wrote:Are vicarious experiences as valid as authentic ones that you have experienced yourself.
You have an unusual high vocabulary, but totally lacks rationality, can't you please stop pesting these fora with your hapless stupidity?
The answer should be very self-explanatory.
..and for the rest of you fools, why waste time on irrelevant idiocy? You are running a fool's errand in answering such simple question that he himself should be able to answer.
thedoc wrote:Are vicarious experiences as valid as authentic ones that you have experienced yourself.
You have an unusual high vocabulary, but totally lacks rationality, can't you please stop pesting these fora with your hapless stupidity?
The answer should be very self-explanatory.
..and for the rest of you fools, why waste time on irrelevant idiocy? You are running a fool's errand in answering such simple question that he himself should be able to answer.
Is this a typical response for this Forum?
Would it not be more valuable to spend the same time saying why the question is stupid rather than simply attacking a person?
Obviously the answer to the question is not self-explanatory to "thedoc".
As for the "rest of you fools", it should be obvious that addressing the issue and not the person has far more value that what you have done which is to make yourself look a fool by failing to address the issue and preferring to thrash-out like someone who does not understand the question in the first place.
If the question is so, easy then why not answer it?
Lev Muishkin wrote:Is this a typical response for this Forum?
Would it not be more valuable to spend the same time saying why the question is stupid rather than simply attacking a person?
Obviously the answer to the question is not self-explanatory to "thedoc".
As for the "rest of you fools", it should be obvious that addressing the issue and not the person has far more value that what you have done which is to make yourself look a fool by failing to address the issue and preferring to thrash-out like someone who does not understand the question in the first place.
If the question is so, easy then why not answer it?
The answer wouldn't be philosophical, as philosophy = love of wisdom = refined and valuable knowledge.
..therefore the answer falls beneath philosophy and into the category of cozy chat ..well even beneath cozy chat, no reasonable intelligent person would waste time answering such stupid question.
This thread is a good example of why cozy chatters stoop philosophy down to irrelevance and no serious business demands philosophers as they don't really have a fucking clue.
I say things straight, you better put me on ignore if you can't handle my Platonic Cave approach.
thedoc wrote:Are vicarious experiences as valid as authentic ones that you have experienced yourself.
You have an unusual high vocabulary, but totally lacks rationality, can't you please stop pesting these fora with your hapless stupidity?
The answer should be very self-explanatory.
..and for the rest of you fools, why waste time on irrelevant idiocy? You are running a fool's errand in answering such simple question that he himself should be able to answer.
Is this a typical response for this Forum?
Would it not be more valuable to spend the same time saying why the question is stupid rather than simply attacking a person?
Obviously the answer to the question is not self-explanatory to "thedoc".
As for the "rest of you fools", it should be obvious that addressing the issue and not the person has far more value that what you have done which is to make yourself look a fool by failing to address the issue and preferring to thrash-out like someone who does not understand the question in the first place.
If the question is so, easy then why not answer it?
Only for Hexhammer. But he doesn't discriminate - he offends everyone.
Lev Muishkin wrote:Is this a typical response for this Forum?
Would it not be more valuable to spend the same time saying why the question is stupid rather than simply attacking a person?
Obviously the answer to the question is not self-explanatory to "thedoc".
As for the "rest of you fools", it should be obvious that addressing the issue and not the person has far more value that what you have done which is to make yourself look a fool by failing to address the issue and preferring to thrash-out like someone who does not understand the question in the first place.
If the question is so, easy then why not answer it?
The answer wouldn't be philosophical, as philosophy = love of wisdom = refined and valuable knowledge.
..therefore the answer falls beneath philosophy and into the category of cozy chat ..well even beneath cozy chat, no reasonable intelligent person would waste time answering such stupid question.
This thread is a good example of why cozy chatters stoop philosophy down to irrelevance and no serious business demands philosophers as they don't really have a fucking clue.
I say things straight, you better put me on ignore if you can't handle my Platonic Cave approach.
I'm trying to decipher this. Are you saying you are our sunshine?
Lev Muishkin wrote:Is this a typical response for this Forum?
Would it not be more valuable to spend the same time saying why the question is stupid rather than simply attacking a person?
Obviously the answer to the question is not self-explanatory to "thedoc".
As for the "rest of you fools", it should be obvious that addressing the issue and not the person has far more value that what you have done which is to make yourself look a fool by failing to address the issue and preferring to thrash-out like someone who does not understand the question in the first place.
If the question is so, easy then why not answer it?
The answer wouldn't be philosophical, as philosophy = love of wisdom = refined and valuable knowledge.
..therefore the answer falls beneath philosophy and into the category of cozy chat ..well even beneath cozy chat, no reasonable intelligent person would waste time answering such stupid question.
This thread is a good example of why cozy chatters stoop philosophy down to irrelevance and no serious business demands philosophers as they don't really have a fucking clue.
I say things straight, you better put me on ignore if you can't handle my Platonic Cave approach.
No one has stooped as low as yourself: an ad hominem is a species of philosophical fallacy.
I see no evidence, as yet of any philosophy from you - but then I am new here.
You still have failed to answer the simple question with any philosophy. Denigrating it as a "cozy chat" is not an example of philosophy.
HexHammer wrote:You have an unusual high vocabulary, but totally lacks rationality, can't you please stop pesting these fora with your hapless stupidity?
The answer should be very self-explanatory.
..and for the rest of you fools, why waste time on irrelevant idiocy? You are running a fool's errand in answering such simple question that he himself should be able to answer.
Is this a typical response for this Forum?
Would it not be more valuable to spend the same time saying why the question is stupid rather than simply attacking a person?
Obviously the answer to the question is not self-explanatory to "thedoc".
As for the "rest of you fools", it should be obvious that addressing the issue and not the person has far more value that what you have done which is to make yourself look a fool by failing to address the issue and preferring to thrash-out like someone who does not understand the question in the first place.
If the question is so, easy then why not answer it?
Only for Hexhammer. But he doesn't discriminate - he offends everyone.
HexHammer wrote:You have an unusual high vocabulary,
Is this a typical response for this Forum?
Would it not be more valuable to spend the same time saying why the question is stupid rather than simply attacking a person?
Obviously the answer to the question is not self-explanatory to "thedoc".
As for the "rest of you fools", it should be obvious that addressing the issue and not the person has far more value that what you have done which is to make yourself look a fool by failing to address the issue and preferring to thrash-out like someone who does not understand the question in the first place.
If the question is so, easy then why not answer it?
HH, Thankyou, It's nice to be recognized.
Lev, unfortunately ad hominems are common on most forums that I have participated in, if you have had a different experience you are indeed fortunate.
Lev, also FYI, I don't usually see HH's posts when I log in, one of the nicer aspects of the ignore feature on this forum.
One for H Hammer... (are you related to MC Hammer?). were we to take the notion of authenticity in the way some philosophers talk about it such as Nietzsche, then the question in the OP is a valid one.
Lev Muishkin wrote:I do not think I have ever had a vicarious experience.
What does one look like?
I can imagine performing an act of employment; does that count?
I took the OP as being related to the Jackson's Knowledge Argument and Lewis' Ability Hypothesis. I could be wrong.
Lev Muishkin wrote:Do you guys often allow him to so effectively de-rail the discussion?
Well, some people feel compelled to care what Mr Hammer thinks. They will get into turgid confrontations about who is the biggest retard/cosy chatter/fuckwit/whatever and bung up a thread that other people have an interest in. We have become used to it. If you stay, so will you.
