Page 5 of 7

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:54 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:51 pm
Parrots don't use money, or create institutions and militaries
Again. What is your point? You seem to be moving the goalposts all the time.

Apes create militaries(armies) and institutions (societies) and wage turf wars against one another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:57 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:54 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:51 pm
Parrots don't use money, or create institutions and militaries
Again. What is your point? You seem to be moving the goalposts all the time.

Apes create militaries(armies) and institutions (societies) and wage turf wars against one another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
The point is that if humanity believes in categorization, then people should be called planets and galaxies

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:57 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:57 pm
The point is that if humanity believes in categorization, then people should be called planets and galaxies
You are categorising right now. Planets and galaxies are categories.

Try and use language without categories.

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:58 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:57 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:57 pm
The point is that if humanity believes in categorization, then people should be called planets and galaxies
You are categorising right now. Planets and galaxies are categories.
Planets and galaxies are real. Squatting, immigrating and deserting isn't

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:59 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:58 pm
Planets and galaxies are real. Squatting, immigrating and deserting isn't
Moving from one country to another is not real? I beg to differ.

I moved from Eastern Europe to South Africa.

I am an immigrant.

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:01 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:59 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:58 pm
Planets and galaxies are real. Squatting, immigrating and deserting isn't
Moving from one country to another is not real? I beg to differ.

I moved from Eastern Europe to South Africa.

I am an immigrant.
Immigration is an interpretation of reality

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:01 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:01 pm
Immigration is an interpretation of reality
So are "planets". It is a category for "celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit round a star".

There are other kinds of celestial bodies which don't orbit stars.

Are you going to get to a point?

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:04 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:01 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:01 pm
Immigration is an interpretation of reality
So are "planets". Are you going to get to a point?
So planets possibly don't exist?

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:06 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:04 pm
So planets possibly don't exist?
Planets are "celestial bodies moving in an elliptical orbit round a star".

There are OTHER celestial bodies orbiting a star. NOT in an elliptical orbit.

Comets. Moons. etc.

The word 'planet' is a category/interpretation. Celestial bodies are real. Planets are not.

And I can do the same with the definition of 'celestial bodies'. They are just objects in space.

I can say 'objects are real' - 'celestial bodies' are just an interpretation.

And then I can say 'celestial bodies' are just an interpretation. Atoms are real.

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:07 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:06 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:04 pm
So planets possibly don't exist?
Planets are "celestial bodies moving in an elliptical orbit round a star".

There are OTHER celestial bodies orbiting a star. NOT in an elliptical orbit.

Comets. Moons. etc.

The word 'planet' is a category/interpretation. Celestial bodies are real. Planets are not.
If planets aren't real, why did people create the word?

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:07 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:07 pm
If planets aren't real, why did people create the word?
So they can categorize the Universe.

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:08 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:07 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:07 pm
If planets aren't real, why did people create the word?
So they can categorize the Universe.
Why categorize the universe?

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:11 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:08 pm
Why categorize the universe?
So you can speak about certain aspects of it.

For example. You could say: "There is a bear behind you!" and save somebody's life.

Try saying anything without having categories (nouns)!

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:16 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:11 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:08 pm
Why categorize the universe?
So you can speak about certain aspects of it.

For example. You could say: "There is a bear behind you!" and save somebody's life.

Try saying anything without having categories (nouns)!
If categorization is correct, should any person be known as the universe?

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:21 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:16 pm
If categorization is correct, should any person be known as the universe?
By what standards of 'correctness'?

Every person is a (small) part of the universe.