Hello all, I'm nameless...

[nameless]

You have detected wrongly this time, Mr. Sherlock Holmes.
There was no sarcasm in my statement about Wootah.

Good. I don't find a place for sarcasm in philosophy.

I am not going to spend hours thinking about who you are.

(insert appropriately sarcastic egoic comment here)

An impression will impose itself on my mind, when I read your posts, whether I want it or not.

Yup, thats how it works.

(If I read your posts.)

Oh, you will!
Muuuaaaahahaha!!!

Good night !

Sweet dreams...

[Psychonaut]

Da freakin' pope!

Along with every other fucker

[nameless]

Da freakin' pope!

Along with every other fucker

Exactly!

[RickLewis]

Hi nameless. We corrected your typo! (Though you probably spotted that by now)

[nameless]

Hi nameless. We corrected your typo! (Though you probably spotted that by now)

Thank you, thank you!
You are a gentleman and a scholar!

You'd think that I'd be used to it by now, but I hate to have to press a button labelled 'submit'! It just goes against the grain! *__-
(Thanx agn!)

[Wootah]

Hi nameless. We corrected your typo! (Though you probably spotted that by now)

Thank you, thank you!
You are a gentleman and a scholar!

You'd think that I'd be used to it by now, but I hate to have to press a button labelled 'submit'! It just goes against the grain! *__-
(Thanx agn!)

It is, after all, good to have a name.

[JackHamiltonJames]

Philosophy is the exploration of any school of thought. As soon as you say it is this or it is that then you have developed a philosophy, but no longer have the mind set of a philosopher which is continously open. Of course it is then reasonable to say what i have sais must not be of philosophical mind, but a philosophy about philosophy, and you would be right. The point is that this thread demonstrates the difference between those who only 'suppose this is true, then this and this' which is a philosopher and those who say 'this is so because of this' who have made a philosophy and entered an absolute. If you are of this kind then religion or science forum may be of more appeal to you.

Without stating it i believe this the point wootah was making to begin with. Philosophy is more than ideas and words, unless you believe otherwise and if you do you have a philosophy but not at perhaps that moment the conscious of a philosopher, if you are to be so certain, as to be absolute.

[nameless]

First, you say this;

Philosophy is the exploration of any school of thought.

I say that philosophy can be the exploration, via critical thought, of anything (there need be no "school of thought" limitations).
But that's not my point, as your statement above says that philosophy is 'this and that' and yet your very next sentence decries what you have just written;

As soon as you say it is this or it is that then you have developed a philosophy, but no longer have the mind set of a philosopher which is continously open.

Defining something is not ordinarily a 'philosophy'.
Philosophers don't (shouldn't?) have "set minds", which are contrary to being "continually open"/flexible.
According to your first two statements, you "no longer have the mind set of a philosopher which is continously open".

Of course it is then reasonable to say what i have sais must not be of philosophical mind, but a philosophy about philosophy, and you would be right. The point is that this thread demonstrates the difference between those who only 'suppose this is true, then this and this' which is a philosopher and those who say 'this is so because of this' who have made a philosophy and entered an absolute. If you are of this kind then religion or science forum may be of more appeal to you.

Are you speaking to me?!?
You couldn't be speaking to me!
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but science is a part of philosophy. One can support a philosophical statement with logic and science and mathematics or whatever branch is appropriate. A religious forum is something different, again, as there are 'beliefs' in predominance, uncritical thought, rather than 'critical thought' (philosophy).

Without stating it i believe this the point wootah was making to begin with.

He(?) is on my 'ignore' list, and I'm uninterested in anything that he might have to say, so there is no need to 'translate'.

Philosophy is more than ideas and words, unless you believe otherwise and if you do you have a philosophy but not at perhaps that moment the conscious of a philosopher, if you are to be so certain, as to be absolute.

I'm sorry, but you are not making any sense.
Philosophy is words and ideas/thoughts. Just what more than that do you think it is?? A paid position of petrification in the hallowed halls of academe?
Philosophy seems to be critical thought..
It doesn't even need words, it is a way of thinking. More than thought? Present your evidence/argument.
It'll have to be better then 'this' embarassing version of "If you don't believe what I say, you should/will go to Hell!"
And if I ever present something as an 'absolute/Universal' feel free to question and examine and refute, but whining that something presented as an absolute (whatever you might be referring to I know not, as you neglect to specify with your vague remarks) is an error that is less than philosophy, is simply nonsense and an ad-hominem fallacy.

[ray]

Welcome nameless.

I hope you find a name here.

[Aetixintro]

Hello nameless
I'm curious about your background and the books you've read. I, myself, have been an undergraduate student in philosophy and I have the books that cover the 7, I think, most essential areas of philosophy, ie. logic, ethics, epistemology, phil. of language, phil. of science, metaphysics and phil. of mind. So I basically cover these subjects to some degree.

Have you been attending university classes or are you now studying at university? I have the Road to Reality by Roger Penrose and I'm a frequent reader of news in physics and science generally. What about you?

Alright, enough for now! We've already encountered eachother in a couple of threads. I look forward to the threads and posts from you.

[nameless]

Hello nameless
I'm curious about your background and the books you've read. I, myself, have been an undergraduate student in philosophy and I have the books that cover the 7, I think, most essential areas of philosophy, ie. logic, ethics, epistemology, phil. of language, phil. of science, metaphysics and phil. of mind. So I basically cover these subjects to some degree.

I remember reading a book once. It was by a doctor, and it was about a chappeau wearing feline who caused sooo much trouble. Seuss was his name, not the feline but the doctor...

I have 'distilled' many books over the decades of my studies. After the chaff is sorted from the wheat, I've had some good data for 'critical thoughtful examination'.
Other than reading, I have done the 'experiments', 'practiced the practices', from a dizzyingly vast array of disparate paths in a never-leave-one-stone-unturned search for Reality/Truth.
I have since found where all 'paths' converge/intersect in an all inclusive ToE.
Yes I have read some books, I have probably (in a sense) read them all (Truth is One, bs abounds!).
These old eyes seem to be rapidly failing, and reading at all becomes quite the chore, so I (relatively) rarely do it. Which is good, in a way, as then I don't have to read the stuff that I write! *__-

Have you been attending university classes or are you now studying at university?

No. I have always lived 'outside the box'!

I have the Road to Reality by Roger Penrose and I'm a frequent reader of news in physics and science generally. What about you?

I don't have 'The Road to Reality' by Roger Penrose (I have read a few of his writings, though), I have kept up with the 'cutting edge' (if you can call it that) of the 'thoughts' of the scholastics echoing from the hallowed halls of academe, and the peer reviewed 'good ol' boys, for decades. They might, at times, provide some food for thought, but not much anymore. They seem to be going where I am. I don't, after all, see any other all inclusive unrefuted ToE's out there.
I have also studied the thoughts of 'heretics' along the way. Often more interesting then what generally seeps from academia.
Reading wise, for instance, I've found the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the Buddhist Surangama Sutra.
Reading used to be fun.

Alright, enough for now! We've already encountered in a couple of threads. I look forward to the threads and posts from you. :)

(raises glass) Here's to many peaceful, fruitful, respectful, insightful, thoughtful discussions! (L' Chaim!)

[nameless]

Welcome nameless.

I hope you find a name here.

Thank you, Ray.
I am whoever you perceive me to be (and more). You can name as you Perceive me, but what will you do as you perceive me differently at different moments, give me different names?
Personally, I'll just be who I am.