CartesianFart
Deity
Here is a brief excerpt of by Jean-Francois Lyotard
Philosophy 101
- Thread starter QES
- Start date
C~G
Untouchable
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 4,146
You are talking the synthesis approach then which I mentioned.Asperger said:
It depends from the questions.Asperger said:
If he was asking "positions" it can mean anything.
I think it can be annoying if the right-winger asked such questions which just highlighted more her stances towards political concepts rather than practical issues.
In such case the questions might not have been that important for the actual politics to happen. We can question the need for such questions then and finally come to conclusion that such questions might be not good for the political process but only changes it into battle of theoretical ideas rather than handling realities of everyday world.
But they might be good questions in theory for the right-wing party politics when considering their popularity since those questions affect the political game itself even convincing you in this case that right-winger is doing something good.
Very good quote there from Lyotard. He's also right on spot about the role of postmodern in general.
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but to quickly distill, is this a debate about the goals of debating?
angeleyes
mood indigo
It's wunderfull. Discussion about debate, anybody asks if this is about the goals of debating, then silence. I think people don't want to know why they are doing what they are doing. This evening i go to a movie "Into great silence". I'm sorry to have broken it here.
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
And here I thought I'd killed the thread
CartesianFart
Deity
Well,the advertisement of the thread is philosophy 101 is self-explanatory.punkbass2000 said:
Of course,it became a playground on who can write the language of philosophy better.
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
What else is argument?
CartesianFart
Deity
Here,i will try a unique definition of what an argument.punkbass2000 said:What else is argument?
A reference passed to a procedural command or program, by the writer.
CartesianFart
Deity
Some philosophers are amateur lexicographers(some are skilled) in the most sense,can anyone define what is "consciousness" in their own unique way?
or "mind"
or "mind"
angeleyes
mood indigo
my impression is you are a definitionjunk . I don't care about definitions, they are dead.
. I don't care about definitions, they are dead.
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
And when you say you don't care about "definitions", what, exactly, are you referring to? 
CartesianFart
Deity
What i want to know is,what does he mean by "dead" is the question.
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
"Not living" or some other false dichotomy, no doubt.
CartesianFart
Deity
Lets see if i can make this out and see if it make any sense.
"Definitions" are something as a discription of a thing or concept that is being dead?
"Definitions" are something as a discription of a thing or concept that is being alive?
The best i can do.
"Definitions" are something as a discription of a thing or concept that is being dead?
"Definitions" are something as a discription of a thing or concept that is being alive?
The best i can do.
angeleyes
mood indigo
OK, i'll try to explain, but know i'm often exaggerating and provoking a little.
Language is a living thing, it changes. If you try to define abstract concepts like consciousness and mind .... well, they are too complex, You should discuss and philosophize about these concepts, not give a short definition cause you only abort the discussion and you are fooling yourself if you think to know what mind or consciousness is when you know there definition.
Language is a living thing, it changes. If you try to define abstract concepts like consciousness and mind .... well, they are too complex, You should discuss and philosophize about these concepts, not give a short definition cause you only abort the discussion and you are fooling yourself if you think to know what mind or consciousness is when you know there definition.
CartesianFart
Deity
Well,i disagree.Asperger said:
Lets say that having a word defined shortly can be an elaborated as a starting point to provide a particular or broad-in-scope of a idealized first principle(archai).Once the established definition is described,argument can be precede from either a primary premise or an ultimate presupposition.
Of course,C~G have a knack for preceeding backward,not forward,from his primary premises and seeks to ground them in an archai(first principle) that is not an hypothesis at all.
Of course that is a skill that most people don't know and hard to ascertain.....The Method of Dialectics.
angeleyes
mood indigo
You philosopher's imo value words to much, i think this started with Plato. First Principle, what kind of nonsense is that? , sounds like God...It's fantasy, but i don't think there's any chance of a bit of agreement between us..
CartesianFart
Deity
Not necessarily so,go read some fragments of various presocratic philosophers.Asperger said:
The word "God" can be inscribe into a first principle just as many words can.Try to think that "First Principle" as a variable and then proceed further to expound on the reason of being so.
Why should we agree on anything?
MayNilad Man
King
Know that this thread is dead, I shall now begin necromancy rituals!
I would like to pose this question:
Is it better to be a slave under a benevolent master or a free man in benevolent conditions?
I would like to pose this question:
Is it better to be a slave under a benevolent master or a free man in benevolent conditions?
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
You're going to need to establish criteria and definitions for that one! 
