Teach Your Children Well...

[tRippq]

most of the mishugas here is due to my attempts not to use a systemized, orderly way of responding/posting. i am still learning how to engage in (posting)dialogue without resorting to the words/ideas/systems of others(within reason). also, i would like to retain some kind of emotional tone in posting so that i don’t fall into the trap of overly categorizing or sterilizing what i consider to be a worthwhlie excersize. this sometimes makes my communication less than ideal.

‘why do you have to make remarks about the topic at hand being uninteresting when all it does is make others feel bad?’

i will be punished in hell, don’t worry. the next part is a bit of confusion about me quoting polemarchus’s post without using the quote box thing: ‘Like it or not, humans…’ my bad.

‘Maybe if we cut the crap, put aside all our differences, and avoid Ad Hominum attacks we can do some interesting debating.’

and then we can all hold hands, sing songs and be happy. yay.

Do you not think there is a system of the utmost importance related to raising children?

no, i don’t. part of what i wanted to get at was that most of the people in this world don’t have or need a ‘system’ to raise their children.

Both Plato and Aristotle thought child raising to be of the greatest importance, so great that they devoted whole sections of their writings to how children should be taught…

holding forth, again. two long dead guys among billions of actual child raisers. i guess i ‘should’ throw kids out the window if they wrote it.

and also why you stuck around, you need discipline, teaching, an idol, someone needs to set the right path for you…“Know thyself”

phew! i must have touched a nerve or something. i need an idol? to set the right path for me? what an insult. the only path they would have me trek is the path of unending banality and slavish addiction to the words of corpses. knowing thyself involves hard work, attention and looking at the ideas of others(especially long dead others) with doubt. not doubting using the vocabulary and methods these ghosts put forth, who haunt the dusty minds of maleable sheep, but in ‘thy’ own way.

That’s just not how we do things here tRippq. It’s as if we’re playing chess and you want to play checkers.

this was in reference to an oblique metaphor on the way more advanced players play chess. there are pre-ordained openings, set-ups, counter-moves, etc., little room for originality or creativity. i am comparing this to the sterile way most philisophical ‘debates’ are only excersizes in memorization. existitentialism is blah and if you believe in what author blah said than there is an extensive literature of what other people said about these things to refer back to. that is not philosophy.

here you can say nearly anything you please as long as you back up your claims with logical arguments…
…Logic is a major field of study in philosophy.
If logical arguments make you crazy…

its like a chinese water torture, these statements. you can pray to the altar of logic. dont expect me to.

[Magius]

tRippq stated:

most of the mishugas here is due to my attempts not to use a systemized, orderly way of responding/posting. i am still learning how to engage in (posting)dialogue without resorting to the words/ideas/systems of others(within reason). also, i would like to retain some kind of emotional tone in posting so that i don’t fall into the trap of overly categorizing or sterilizing what i consider to be a worthwhlie excersize. this sometimes makes my communication less than ideal.

That just isnt so, your missing the point. I personally dont care what system you use, or how you respond as long as your not demeaning others. This isn’t a place to come and berate others, otherwise expect to be berated yourself. What you said to Polemarchus was rude, pretentious, and obtuse. You say you are learning hot engage into dialogue without resorting to words/ideas/systems of others (within reason) - well define that reason cause bud, every word you use was created by someone, so lets drop the whole “I am the best, I am going to be different, I am smarter than the ancients and hence don’t need to even think about their words”. The ancients had many smart things to say, so smart that their words still have relevance today. You wanna have emotion in your posts, have emotion in your post, but dont put others DOWN! As far as I’m concerned there is enough emotion in peoples posts in this forum, instead of criticising others, write your damn emotional posts and maybe some of us, if we choose to, will adopt or learn from your posts so that we can be heightened emotional beings.
There isn’t anything wrong with your communication style when you aren’t demeaning others. Thats what you dont seem to be getting.

I asked you normally why you had to come into the thread and just complain about the irrelevance of the subject, instead of being an intellectual and explaining the reason or admitting you were an ass for doing it, you come out with sarcasm…

i will be punished in hell, don’t worry.

As if my purpose was to demean you. If I wanted to demean you I would just tell you that you are an ignorant prick who needs to go back to grade school to learn how to articulate himself as well as to learn how to communicate with others. But I didn’t say that. I merely asked you why you thought it so important to demean what people were talking about.

Then when I try to tell you to cut the crap, withdraw Ad Hominum attacks and stick to debating, you again come out with sarcasm…

and then we can all hold hands, sing songs and be happy. yay.

What your telling me here is that you are here to make your presence known only through demeaning others, putting others down, and letting everyone know how smart and right you are.

tRippq stated:

no, i don’t. part of what i wanted to get at was that most of the people in this world don’t have or need a ‘system’ to raise their children.

I think you are wrong, I think many people think that there is a system to raising children right. Otherwise ECE (Early Childhood Education) would not be provided in all colleges and universities that I know of in Canada. Maybe some people from the US who read this can post whether or not it is provided in the US. Maybe, tRippq you can research your own area and find out if ECE is being provided in schools.

I stated:

Both Plato and Aristotle thought child raising to be of the greatest importance, so great that they devoted whole sections of their writings to how children should be taught…

You replied with…

holding forth, again. two long dead guys among billions of actual child raisers. i guess i ‘should’ throw kids out the window if they wrote it.

Like I said previously. The words of the above two long dead guys had some things to say that are relevant till today. The latter part of your quote confuses me, but drawing such examples illustrates, though doesnt prove, that you have a screw lose in ya head. Were you traumatized as a child? Do you have children?

tRippq stated:

knowing thyself involves hard work, attention and looking at the ideas of others(especially long dead others) with doubt.

You a solipsist? You are correct that knowing thyself involves hard work and attention. But you are partly incorrect in saying that it involves looking at the ideas of others with doubt. You shouldn’t aim to doubt, you should look at others ideas and see if you agree or not. If you disagree, then investigate why you disagree. But if your primary purpose in looking at the thoughts of others with doubt, I can tell you that it leads to unpleasant future for yourself and those close to you. I know cause I have been around people like that, the person themselves and those around them are not happy. Critiqueing becomes a power/control trip for the critiquer instead of a system of finding truth. There is much to be learned form ideas you disagree with while trying your hardest to find ways their idea might be true. I despise Spinoza, for his forever overlapping of infinity upon infinity; but I attempted one day to see if I could make any real sense of his view and I came up with interesting results.

First you make vague remarks demeaning people, and when they defend themselves you come out with…

i am comparing this to the sterile way most philisophical ‘debates’ are only excersizes in memorization. existitentialism is blah and if you believe in what author blah said than there is an extensive literature of what other people said about these things to refer back to. that is not philosophy.

The assumption behind your quote is that Polemarchus et al, are just referring to what other authors have already said. Attempt, as my previous paragraph states, to see Polemarchus’ side from a different persepective. Notice that Polemarchus first gives his personal opinion which he defines using his own words, and then he informs us of what he is reminded of when he thinks those thoughts, which leads us to an even deeper understanding from an authoritative figure in the subject so that we may absorb what scholars have to say on the topic as well. I want to take this opportunity to actually applaud Polemarchus’ ability to do this, because his quotes always fit and suite the topic at head and they really do add insight into what he is talking about. tRippq, this strategy that Polemarchus uses can be found in books written by some of the greatest minds. Only jealousy can lead to the view you hold of Polemarchus. His posts are all about his personal opinion on what he thinks or what others have said, he is very low key and careful not to hurt anyones feelings. It takes an art to express yourself without stepping on anyones toes.

Lastly, Polemarchus defended logic in informing you correctly that it is a major field of philosophy, since you demeaned it thoughtlessly; and instead of backing up you statement with something exhibiting comprehension, you state…

you can pray to the altar of logic. dont expect me to.

Polemarchus was not praying to the altar of logic, nor was he expecting you to. He was just informing you that Logic is a major field of study in Philosophy. You continually read behind the words of what people actually say, which only shows the inadecuacies you have in your life experiences. But don’t come here and project them onto us. All I expect you to do is not demean others. You view can be the stupidist thing I ever heard, or the smartest, either way I don’t care; but when you begin demeaning people you can expect a berating.

What’s your take?

[Brad]

I suppose I’ll put in my own two cents here as I don’t think I’ve ever been compared to a tree before – deciduous and all that. The first thing that strikes me is how vacuous T’s points really are, far more concerned with a certain style (original, non-logical, presentation etc.), but seems quite content to rely on common sense as the final abjudicator. Doesn’t that sound just a little contradictory? That is, T wants to say the same thing everybody else does just, you know, in a new and original and interesting way.

As far as child rearing goes, T doesn’t consider it a worthy topic for a philosophy forum because people are like, you know, going to do their own thing. Besides the fact that Dr. Spock, not Mr. Spock, has made a fortune telling parents what to do, can’t this strategy be used for any topic on a forum such as this? After all, nothing we write here, at least initially (that is, someone might write a book someday) will have much significance at all if one takes the bigger picture into account. So what? I thought we were just a group of individuals interested in ‘this stuff’ and want a place to talk about ‘this stuff’ with others. To keep the motif going, does T run around Star Trek chat forums and claim their insignificance?

Chess has been mentioned as well. I suppose it’s true that it’s hard to see the excitement of a well played chess match if you have no interest in the game, but it’s difficult to describe something original, exciting, or unique within chess without first knowing what those standard openings, counter moves, and end games actually are. That is, you can’t know what an original chess player is, you can’t be astounded by a particular move and appreciate its beauty, unless you understand the background of the game itself. Throwing things out because it’s different is just a way of losing the game.

Philosophy works much the same way. The Analytic tradition and the Continental tradition are both kind of ‘in groups’ with their own idiocyncrasies and terminologies, but you can’t really know what’s going on in either tradition unless you actually read the tradition. I think Polemarcus has mentioned the Wittgenstein exception to this, but W is W and T is T. Now, of course, T may be mesmerized by his own abilities, hynotized by his genius, and utterly committed to exorcising the whole tradition. Fine, but there is nothing really new in this approach, it’s called youth for most people, Romanticism in the philosophical tradition. Every generation does it.

Go for it, T, but you haven’t even started the battle yet. Falling back on common sense is retrograde, even reactionary, it’s an appeal to communal thought and how is that in any way original?

Which brings us to logic.

Now, there are three laws to logic formulated by Aristotle:

1. A equals A (The Law of Identity)

2. A doesn’t equal not A (The Law of non-contradiction)

3. A cannot be both A and not A (The Law of the Excluded Middle)

The important modification in all these is that they are referring to A at the same time and in the same respect. Contrary to what you may believe T much has been written that attacks these fundamental laws of logic. In Postmodernism, the third law is usually the one attacked, but Hegel famously went after the law of identity. The result? Well, most criticism almost always seem to forget that important modification mentioned so they’ve never really been surpassed. Even Hegel’s famous dialectical fomulations don’t, in fact, contradict the above, they just use them differently.

All they really do is forbid you from saying things like:

1. An apple is an orange.

2. I didn’t do that thing I did yesterday.

3. I was in Houston and Dallas when I commited that crime in Dallas.

Now, these formulations are broken all the time in literature and in daily conversation, and, to be honest, I like it that way, but, at the same time, we do need to attempt logical and rational arguments to counter the common and the everyday. Be as illogical as you want, T, but there’s nothing original in that and it does nothing to hurt the fortress of logical argument. Actually, being logical, is one way (though I concede that it is perhaps not the only way) to break the crust of dead convention.

You worry much about passion and I appreciate that but it is the passionless who skim the surface and attempt to be original. It is the empassioned who get specific, who use everything they can get their hands on, who attack the foundations of common sense, and that, if you’re going to attack anything, is where you should direct your passion.

[tRippq]

You say you are learning hot engage into dialogue without resorting to words/ideas/systems of others (within reason) - well define that reason cause bud, every word you use was created by someone, so lets drop the whole "I am the best, I am going to be different, I am smarter than …

i never said i was reinventing the wheel, or even that im original. i would,however, like to add some spice. as for the phrase ‘within reason’, im sure there is a definition on the internet somewhere.

have emotion in your post, but dont put others DOWN!..
If I wanted to demean you I would just tell you that you are an ignorant prick…
…but drawing such examples illustrates, though doesnt prove, that you have a screw lose in ya head. Were you traumatized as a child?
…when you begin demeaning people you can expect a berating.

so which is it?

The latter part of your quote confuses me, but drawing…

its similar to the expression used when someone uses the excuse, ‘well, they were doing it…’ and the response is ‘if they were jumping out of a window, would you do that too?’

But if your primary purpose in looking at the thoughts of others with doubt…Critiqueing becomes a power/control trip for the critiquer instead of a system of finding truth.

i’m not talking about an etched in stone, everlasting denial type of doubt. perhaps a ‘questioning doubt’ would be a better way to put it.

It takes an art to express yourself without stepping on anyones toes.

correct. yet if you never step on anyone’s toes, ever, you probably aren’t being very true to yourself.

Polemarchus was not praying to the altar of logic, nor was he expecting you to…You continually read behind the words of what people actually say…

and you read behind the words of what people actually think of what i said. let polemarchus speak for polemarchus.

Throwing things out because it’s different is just a way of losing the game.

i dont care about winning or losing. frankly, i dont know what i care about.

Fine, but there is nothing really new in this approach, it’s called youth for most people, Romanticism in the philosophical tradition.

yes! the labeling! more labelling, please, just label me, my soul, everything i am and represent! ahh, isn’t it satisfying to label something? then you have power over it, you know it, it is defined, definite, finite. it can be seized and wrangled, touched, manipulated…but it, then, cannot be destroyed. the finite becomes infinite, a base upon which towers of thought and opining can be created. just dont shelter under it when the tower collapses.

Be as illogical as you want, T, but there’s nothing original in that and it does nothing to hurt the fortress of logical argument.

why would i want to hurt your precious fortress? how could i? you are the only one who can affect it. and i never said anything about being illogical, i just question the usefulness of extraneous logic. you people and your ‘points’. sheesh.

It is the empassioned who get specific, who use everything they can get their hands on, who attack the foundations of common sense, and that, if you’re going to attack anything, is where you should direct your passion.

i am not empassioned, nor do i care to be. i don’t want to attack anything. i like common sense, actually. and where my passion ‘should’ be directed is none of your business.

[Brad]

First, I didn’t label you, I described your (non)position. Whatever power surge you felt was probably the last vestiges of your own misguided effort to power play this thread (It’s a common rhetorical technique by the way). Also, what was the approving tone to Kirk’s supposed illogic if not a further display of your bias toward illogic. You said it, you can change your mind, you can concede you were wrong, but you can’t say you didn’t say it.

Your love for common sense seems directly in contrast to this:

you mean, teach the boy an unbending, authoritarian, methodical ideology to replace his natural means of thought, his creativity?

I can’t think of a better definition of what common sense is.

Those who have responded to this thread seriously (and for some reason you just don’t see that many actually disagree with Polemarcus’s point)are not the ones who have mindlessly regurgitated things they’ve heard from memory, it is you who have done that.

[Magius]

tRippq stated:

i dont care about winning or losing. frankly, i dont know what i care about.

??? You KNOW you dont care about winning or losing, but, you dont know what you care about. Well first off, I suggest you do some introspection into your thought patterns. Then use some logic, as the above quote indicates you are lacking, and realize for yourself what you views are, whether you agree, don’t agree, or are agnostic. But don’t you you know and then say you dont know. This is where logic serves in helping us realize our contradictions. I believe there is much you care about, and even more that you can come to care about. Einstein once said something along the lines of: there are two types of people in the world, those who look at the happenings of the world to be just that; happenings of the world, and then there are those who look at the happenings of the world as miracles. The point being is that you can look at life in a way that is your brains basic processing of informations from the doors of perception, and then there is a way for you to look at the world that opens a secret door in your mind that leads to a long hallway which itself leads to love. In this case love makes you see things as beautiful, insights curiousity and wonder, the primary and most basic ingredients to philosophy. I think you may find one quote I once made up to be helpful: “Love life, life will love you back”. You can’t expect things to just start working out for you, you can’t expect life to show its greatest beauties to you. You have to give in order to receive. You have to fall in love with life, life is like interactionism, what you put into it you also get out of it.

It is in your best interest to do things from the viewpoint of caring. For your health sake as well as others. Dale Carnegie, one of the most famous self-help writers to date once said “Hurting people not only does not change them, it is never called for.” -and- “If you tell me how you get your feeling of importance, I’ll tell you what you are. That determines your character. That is the most significant thing about you.”

In thinking the above about you, I must say that the fact that you keep coming back, you must find discussion of some relevant importance to your life. You must care about defending your view, expressing your ideas, and debating (although a little too harshly) against the opposition. This is a good thing, caring I mean. So we have found something you care about. What if you began to care about others opinions whether they agree with yours or not? What if you tried to find merit in others opinions that you were convinced were wrong, but you tried to find some kind of truth in their statement, only to find that they were partly right. In doing this you learn to explain the error to the person because you have defined it, instead of making personal attacks. Like Emerson once said “Every man I meet is my superior in some way. In that, I learn from him”. I contend that there is much for you to learn from anyone, even the most lay man.

Anyway, I hope I have helped in atleast the slightest way in making you see things from a more optimistic light.

Take care,