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

Down the rabbit hole

Expand Messages
  • William
    I know little about imprinting theory, Do you think viewing Leary on the tube could cause a negative recollection of the viewing?I view the drug experiences
    Message 1 of 171 , Jan 2, 2010
      I know little about imprinting theory, Do you think viewing Leary on the tube could cause a negative recollection of the viewing?I view the drug experiences not as moral failings but as roadsigns in a dangerous life. Adventurous, aggressive males need the action especially in their twenties. Those who go to the Army may have the right idea, at least they channel the wildness. The spook types are especially exposed to drug influences. Drugs,guns and cash fuel the tensions at borders and the spooks are usually there. Our CIA personell blown up in Afganistan were at the apex of the worlds greatest opiate cartel. There is a smack war going on there and a coke war going on in Mexaco. We still tell christian america our power will erradicate the dealers and users. Nobody who has been in the field thinks any silly shit like that.All we can hope to do is control the cowboys and indians until they settle down enough to get a job and try to start the payback. The suvivors know this pattern and many will admit the debt. How many good years does it take. Bill
    • Jim
      Hi Polly, You write: Philosophy, if it is not reflected in what people do, is more akin to armchair trivia. Socrates philosophy was to drink hemlock when
      Message 171 of 171 , Jan 28, 2010
        Hi Polly,

        You write:

        "Philosophy, if it is not reflected in what people do, is more akin to armchair trivia. Socrates' philosophy was to drink hemlock when push came to shove; all conceptual thinking notwithstanding."

        Yes, I completely agree with your first sentence. I certainly try to act in line with my philosophical views which combine elements of virtue ethics with existentialism.

        Socrates certainly lived his philosophy. He drank the hemlock as he argued that it was the just thing to do, rather than save his skin by escaping the death sentence passed on him by the Athenian Justice System.

        Unlike you, I have a very high opinion of Socrates who was courageous enough to speak out and act as he felt he should, even when it was dangerous for him to do so.

        In my last post to you, I wrote:

        "I am interested in the sort of questions Socrates asked. I am primarily interested in the two questions: "What am I?" and "How should I live?" I am certainly not interested in the question "What is a question?".

        You replied:

        "That's fine, of course. It does however mean you will not be able to come anywhere near Descartes or his method of doubt, or proceed beyond him. Or in other words, you are rather fond of your ideal, a priori world, and you fully intend to cling to it for dear life."

        I am not sure why you say that I have an "ideal, a priori world, and … fully intend to cling to it for dear life." My ethical views are a posteriori, as they are based on my experience of what actions and attitudes cause human beings either benefit or harm.

        I am not sure what "a priori" beliefs you are thinking of.

        You suggest that to be consistent with my own outlook, I need to put some time and effort investigating the question "What is a question?"

        However, I think if I did spend time studying this question, I would be guilty of the "armchair trivia" you rightly criticise above. Further, I have already said that I know what a question is. Why should I spend time and effort examining a phenomenon I already fully understand?

        Philosophy, in my view, is all about starting off with the things one knows, and trying to learn significant things one does not know, all the while applying one's knowledge in one's actions in the world.

        As I say above, I am not aware of clinging to unexamined attitudes and beliefs "for dear life", but if you and others think I am guilty of that so be it.

        It seems to me that you do not favour asking philosophical questions, nor trying to provide philosophical answers. Such conceptual activity only prevents the person from gaining uncluttered access to the real.

        You criticise Socrates, but surely you must criticise all philosophers (including all existentialists) for promoting the very thing you think is most harmful to human beings – conceptual thinking.

        Jim
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.