Ah shit man, you have all been reading too many detective Nancy Drew novels.
WTF?!
That’s not a denial. And I also seem to remember James S. Saint and James L. Walker first appeared on ILP around the same time.
Magnus Anderson:Maybe these were automatic posts that he set up in advance?
WTF?!
I mean, maybe JSS didn’t want to spam that forum with his posts so he simply queued them.
And a saint is of course someone who walks with God, a walker with God… And about the origins of the letter L, Wikipedia writes:
“Lamedh may have come from a pictogram of an ox goad or cattle prod. Some have suggested a shepherd’s staff.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L)
As for the letter S:
“Northwest Semitic šîn […] originated most likely as a pictogram of a tooth[.]” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S)
These symbols are united in that of the trident, which literally means “three-tooth”. The trident is the weapon of Shiva, whose steed is a white bull, and of Poseidon/Neptune, who sent a white bull to seduce Pasiphaë. I could go on!
The admin J.S.Saint on Neosophi Network is not James. Encode-decode is using that name so as to post quotes with the proper name attached.
But then his threads are temporally close to that of encode’s thread – only minutes apart. So Sauwelios is prolly right.
The admin J.S.Saint on Neosophi Network is not James. Encode-decode is using that name so as to post quotes with the proper name attached.
Thanks for clarifying. Back to square one.
The admin J.S.Saint on Neosophi Network is not James. Encode-decode is using that name so as to post quotes with the proper name attached.
I see. (People who want me to go on about that bull stuff may want to check this out, by the way: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2117098#p2117098.) So e_d’s tribute to James may really be posthumous, then. Tragic irony, man, tragic irony…
Still, let’s not lose sight of the fact [if it is a fact] that in so many predicable ways James was/is a run of the mill objectivist.
And that, indeed, some take this to the grave.
If it’s any consolation to them, though, I’ll be tumbling into my very own soon enough.
The Grim Reaper could not care less about objectivism. Much less nihilism.
This brings up a good question…
What kind of philosopher is the “grim reaper”?
Is he the devil or some other aspect of Satan?
And who would Satan admire as a philosopher?
From what I read, he seems to be a rather
Emotional kind of guy! He doesn’t seem to
Be into rational kind of thoughts…
Kropotkin
Still, let’s not lose sight of the fact [if it is a fact] that in so many predicable ways James was/is a run of the mill objectivist.
I agree, he was a dinosaur. A formidable dinosaur, though.
And that, indeed, some take this to the grave.
If it’s any consolation to them, though, I’ll be tumbling into my very own soon enough.
The Grim Reaper could not care less about objectivism. Much less nihilism.
Logically, that either means He does care about objectivism, and possibly nihilism too, but just cannot care about it less than a certain positive amount. Unless you think He may care less than nothing… If not, then let us try and care a negative amount. Then if so after all, we may actually end up caring a positive amount?
Still, let’s not lose sight of the fact [if it is a fact] that in so many predicable ways James was/is a run of the mill objectivist.
And that, indeed, some take this to the grave.
If it’s any consolation to them, though, I’ll be tumbling into my very own soon enough.
The Grim Reaper could not care less about objectivism. Much less nihilism.
Are you saying that death is objective?
That surely doesn’t sound very dasein.
Zinnat would certainly disagree that James is dead.
Zinnat would certainly disagree that James is dead.
Why is that? Did he take a prolonged trip to India that we don’t know about?
Magnus Anderson:Zinnat would certainly disagree that James is dead.
Why is that? Did he take a prolonged trip to India that we don’t know about?
He would tell us we can’t know whether James is dead or not because the procedure that we use to decide so does not apply to woodfrogs.
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 5#p2681525
I am merely using the observations of science to challenge the benchmarks of death decided by the science itself. I am saying that absence of pulse, heartbeat and brain activity is not enough to declare death. And, that begs further questions like what is actually that causes death or happens at the time of death and what should be right benchmarks of death.
Zinnat would certainly disagree that James is dead.
Haha yeah I remember him.
Zero_Sum: Magnus Anderson:Zinnat would certainly disagree that James is dead.
Why is that? Did he take a prolonged trip to India that we don’t know about?
He would tell us we can’t know whether James is dead or not because the procedure that we use to decide so does not apply to woodfrogs.
viewtopic.php?p=2681525#p2681525
I am merely using the observations of science to challenge the benchmarks of death decided by the science itself. I am saying that absence of pulse, heartbeat and brain activity is not enough to declare death. And, that begs further questions like what is actually that causes death or happens at the time of death and what should be right benchmarks of death.
Shit man that’s deep and hilarious also.