Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Bullshit

Expand Messages
  • Brandon Roshto
    Yana said, Plato lived in a world that was different. The answers that have been written do not change or improve the human condition in our times. Once
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 31, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Yana said, "Plato lived in a world that was different. The answers that
      have been written do not change or improve the human condition in our
      times."

      Once again" faculty assumptions and misunderstanding" at work.

      I'll give you a taste of your own sophist-like techniques
      you use to criticize others on this list. It's easy. You who accuses
      many of not thinking.

      1. You said, " Plato lived in a world that was different."
      What was so different about their world than ours? Were the
      natural laws of their world different from the natural laws of our
      world? Are we not still studying the same natural laws they were
      studying in the 4th century BC? If this is the case then don't
      bother sending posts to anyone that lives outside of your area (CA
      I think) because nature might be different for those who don't
      reside in your commune.
      2. You said, "The answers that have been written do not change or improve
      the human condition in our times."
      God this is easy. Lets consider Copernicus. He argued
      successfully that, rather than the sun revolving around the earth
      (the geocentric theory), the earth revolved around the sun (the
      heliocentric theory). He proved this in the 15th century. This
      was before this technology you spoke of Yana. There was no
      almanac. Thales (585 BC) predicted an eclipse. He did this by
      watching the stars. Are you telling me that this knowledge isn't
      practical?
      It seems to me that you think that people in the 20th century are
      so much smarter than those of the past.
      -could you prove the earth round?
      -could you predict a eclipse?
      -could you explain the laws of gravity (this has no value today
      either according to you)
      -could you prove the heliocentric theory?


      ON ETHICS and Morality
      Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, for your information, founded the basis
      for all MORALITY. The morality and ethics today still echo the works of
      the
      philosophers and not much more (I Think). Nietzsche is an exception,
      however he is related to Aristotle. His ethics, for the most part, are
      opposite
      Aristotle's. However, my point: All moral and ethical theory is in
      opposition or
      response to the medieval philosophers.
      *If you think differently Yana, don't just make an assertion like
      you ususally do w/o evidence, facts, observations, or some
      authority on
      the subject to back it up. All knowledge isn't subjective. And if you
      think it is don't reply to this post. If you think all knowledge is
      subjective then write
      a book and title it Yanaism or something. Let me know when the book is
      done. I'll critique it for you (at a small proce of coarse).


      Ethics and morality still revolve around the great philosophers. Most
      people know the general themes in these subjects. However, they do not
      seem to live by these central all of the time. This is common sense.

      Technology, on the other hand, still revolves around the same
      knowledge that you assumed worthless in Plato's time: Natural science.
      The difference between our technology is that we apply the maximums of
      these sciences. Although these maxims are abstruse to the layman, he
      still benifits from their application.

      It seems to me at the present time, that ethical and moral theory are
      paradoxical. For example, as I mentioned above: Most of us know the
      foundations of all these theories, regardless of if you know Aristotle. .
      . etc. But the problem is that we don't apply these basic simple ideals
      that we are conscious of and understand. This is the problem.


      Brandon

      PS: Yana PLEASE don't make these general assumptions w/o an effort to
      back them up beyond the fact that you made them, that you thought them,
      that you think. . . . In a real world this means nothing to me. However
      nature in SC may be different then nature in CA. Therefore the same
      natural laws won't apply to us universallily. If you think this is the
      case don't bother responding to this message.


      YANA SAYS: "Plato lived in a world that was different. The answers that
      have been written do not change the human condition in our times"
      Am I the only one that disagrees? Let me know.
    • Matt Kirby
      I agree with you, thank you for the very well presented argument, hopefully Yana will take your advice and THINK before she post. Yana I hope you read Roshto s
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 31, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        I agree with you, thank you for the very well presented argument, hopefully
        Yana will take your advice and THINK before she post. Yana I hope you read
        Roshto's post completely and understand that if you want to present a
        perspective or an argument this is the logical and acceptable way. Making
        false and unfounded assumptions will not get people to think, it will only
        make people look at you as an uneducated moron, to put it lightly. There
        comes a time Yana when you must relize that people are not like you, and
        people do not think like you (Thank God for that), you must accept that and
        be humble in you opinion's no matter how bad the delusions of grandeur are.
        Thanks again Roshto for the well presented post.
        Kirby
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
        To: <existlist@onelist.com>
        Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 6:53 PM
        Subject: [existlist] Bullshit


        > From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
        >
        >
        >
        > Yana said, "Plato lived in a world that was different. The answers that
        > have been written do not change or improve the human condition in our
        > times."
        >
        > Once again" faculty assumptions and misunderstanding" at work.
        >
        > I'll give you a taste of your own sophist-like techniques
        > you use to criticize others on this list. It's easy. You who accuses
        > many of not thinking.
        >
        > 1. You said, " Plato lived in a world that was different."
        > What was so different about their world than ours? Were the
        > natural laws of their world different from the natural laws of our
        > world? Are we not still studying the same natural laws they were
        > studying in the 4th century BC? If this is the case then don't
        > bother sending posts to anyone that lives outside of your area (CA
        > I think) because nature might be different for those who don't
        > reside in your commune.
        > 2. You said, "The answers that have been written do not change or improve
        > the human condition in our times."
        > God this is easy. Lets consider Copernicus. He argued
        > successfully that, rather than the sun revolving around the earth
        > (the geocentric theory), the earth revolved around the sun (the
        > heliocentric theory). He proved this in the 15th century. This
        > was before this technology you spoke of Yana. There was no
        > almanac. Thales (585 BC) predicted an eclipse. He did this by
        > watching the stars. Are you telling me that this knowledge isn't
        > practical?
        > It seems to me that you think that people in the 20th century are
        > so much smarter than those of the past.
        > -could you prove the earth round?
        > -could you predict a eclipse?
        > -could you explain the laws of gravity (this has no value today
        > either according to you)
        > -could you prove the heliocentric theory?
        >
        >
        > ON ETHICS and Morality
        > Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, for your information, founded the basis
        > for all MORALITY. The morality and ethics today still echo the works of
        > the
        > philosophers and not much more (I Think). Nietzsche is an exception,
        > however he is related to Aristotle. His ethics, for the most part, are
        > opposite
        > Aristotle's. However, my point: All moral and ethical theory is in
        > opposition or
        > response to the medieval philosophers.
        > *If you think differently Yana, don't just make an assertion like
        > you ususally do w/o evidence, facts, observations, or some
        > authority on
        > the subject to back it up. All knowledge isn't subjective. And if you
        > think it is don't reply to this post. If you think all knowledge is
        > subjective then write
        > a book and title it Yanaism or something. Let me know when the book is
        > done. I'll critique it for you (at a small proce of coarse).
        >
        >
        > Ethics and morality still revolve around the great philosophers. Most
        > people know the general themes in these subjects. However, they do not
        > seem to live by these central all of the time. This is common sense.
        >
        > Technology, on the other hand, still revolves around the same
        > knowledge that you assumed worthless in Plato's time: Natural science.
        > The difference between our technology is that we apply the maximums of
        > these sciences. Although these maxims are abstruse to the layman, he
        > still benifits from their application.
        >
        > It seems to me at the present time, that ethical and moral theory are
        > paradoxical. For example, as I mentioned above: Most of us know the
        > foundations of all these theories, regardless of if you know Aristotle. .
        > . etc. But the problem is that we don't apply these basic simple ideals
        > that we are conscious of and understand. This is the problem.
        >
        >
        > Brandon
        >
        > PS: Yana PLEASE don't make these general assumptions w/o an effort to
        > back them up beyond the fact that you made them, that you thought them,
        > that you think. . . . In a real world this means nothing to me. However
        > nature in SC may be different then nature in CA. Therefore the same
        > natural laws won't apply to us universallily. If you think this is the
        > case don't bother responding to this message.
        >
        >
        > YANA SAYS: "Plato lived in a world that was different. The answers that
        > have been written do not change the human condition in our times"
        > Am I the only one that disagrees? Let me know.
        >
        >
        > > From The Exist List...
        > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      • Meghan
        Brandon wrote: It would certainly be a challenge to create an entirely new system of
        Message 3 of 3 , Oct 31, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Brandon wrote:

          <<Ethics and morality still revolve around the great philosophers.>>

          It would certainly be a challenge to create an entirely new system of
          ethics without using any component already present in a moral system. A
          good deal of them are either refuting or expanding on pre-existing moral
          theories.

          Besides, as we all well know, citing a reliable authority which supports
          your stance gives your position more validity.

          <<Most people know the general themes in these subjects. However, they do
          not seem to live by these central all of the time. This is common sense.>>

          This is an excellent point. I'm well aware of the categorical imperative,
          but I'd find myself paralyzed if I attempted to live by it. :-)

          <<YANA SAYS: "Plato lived in a world that was different. The answers that
          have been written do not change the human condition in our times" Am I the
          only one that disagrees? Let me know.>>

          I disagree; the answers that have been written *did* change the human
          condition, from their inception to the present day. And as people find new
          ways to intrepret and apply them, they will continue to shape our world.


          -Meghan


          _____________________

          http://nettrash.com/users/meghan/enter.html

          "Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way myself."

          -- Rita Mae Brown
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.