ILovePhilosophy.com

I found this thread after issuing a warning elsewhere. Trixie gets a 24 hour cooling off.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

phoneutria wrote:I think you should probably shut up about obie, trix.

This an open boards. Im not going to be silent about
this. Orbie, get help.

There is no cure against love, especially for philosophy. Some say it's it'self an illness. For the cure, You'd sell not only Your body, but that of anyone close and dear to You. Thanks for the advice, sorry for Your ban, but it's nly 24 hours. Tkake a pill, go to bed, and You'll be laughing about it in the morning.

As always, orbie

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:When they change their DNA, they will become more intelligient, more healthy, athletic, kind, and good looking. By more intelligient, I mean they will be able to program and understand massive equations that only idiot savants can. This will be the new average. Imagine all the world, full of geniuses, but without the negative attributes, like lacking social skills. If everyone is a scientist, as well as healthy and athletic, the world's problems will end. And not only that, but there will be great new suprises, improved relationships, and scientific progress and tech beyond your wildest dreams.

All from just modifying a little bit of DNA.

The changing of the human DNA has been being in the works for so long. .... Solutions? More good than bad or more bad than good? I would say more ....

phoneutria wrote:I couldn't lay down the hammer on you even if I wanted to. Just pointing out that when you don't even know if someone is a he or a she, there is very little you can say about them without sounding like a little shit.

Why is the requirement of knowing someone's gender needed to sound eloquent?

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

phoneutria wrote:I couldn't lay down the hammer on you even if I wanted to. Just pointing out that when you don't even know if someone is a he or a she, there is very little you can say about them without sounding like a little shit.

Why is the requirement of knowing someone's gender needed to sound eloquent?

It's not at all -- unrealistically speaking of course, it might be perhaps if the male or female needs that extra push knowing the other's gender in order to impress a male or female with his/her eloquence, perhaps if he or she is looking for a mate. So it might simply be about looking for a mate.

On the other hand, is it possible that it might be needed from a person's perspective? It still comes down to that extra push, I think but - a man may use certain things: qualities, manipulations, logic/reason, heart/pathos, et cetera to sound eloquent to another man or woman and a woman -- the same thing.

That might not make any sense to you though Trixie girl. But in a way, it could make sense. People are always generalizing things in here like - men and women think and feel differently about things.

Men and women do think differently. You can always find a couple of transgendered lesbians here and there but that doesnt prove the bottom line.

To change the Dna I say we get a team of scientists together and make a DNA machine. We put the machine in several major cities and provide it as a free upgrade.

No, what I meant is that you don't know the first thing about him.
I don't know a whole lot about him either, but just from the fact that he is elderly, there were probably not even personal computers when he was at student age, let alone www.
Sure he could study philosophy from used books, and there is no reason for you to ever assume that he wouldn't be able to figure that out by himself, and rather needed the money to pursue a degree in philosophy, not something unheard of, wanting to get a degree on a subject you love so you can find work in that field.
So who is it that needs to get help here? Sounds like you might need a little hand pulling your head out of your ass.

phoneutria wrote:No, what I meant is that you don't know the first thing about him.
I don't know a whole lot about him either, but just from the fact that he is elderly, there were probably not even personal computers when he was at student age, let alone www.
Sure he could study philosophy from used books, and there is no reason for you to ever assume that he wouldn't be able to figure that out by himself, and rather needed the money to pursue a degree in philosophy, not something unheard of, wanting to get a degree on a subject you love so you can find work in that field.
So who is it that needs to get help here? Sounds like you might need a little hand pulling your head out of your ass.

Ooh, the spider speaks. Mighty brave 'talkin to a Trixie like that.

phoneutria wrote:No, what I meant is that you don't know the first thing about him.
I don't know a whole lot about him either, but just from the fact that he is elderly, there were probably not even personal computers when he was at student age, let alone www.
Sure he could study philosophy from used books, and there is no reason for you to ever assume that he wouldn't be able to figure that out by himself, and rather needed the money to pursue a degree in philosophy, not something unheard of, wanting to get a degree on a subject you love so you can find work in that field.
So who is it that needs to get help here? Sounds like you might need a little hand pulling your head out of your ass.

Never heard about philosophy jobs. Philosophy is about being destitute and not fitting into society. Satyr is one of the best philosophers here, and he lives with his mom. Same with the ancient greek philosophers. They took prestige in their destitution, and social awkwardness. Philosophy isnt about getting paid as a philosophy job, or getting a degree in modern philosophy, never was.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Never heard about philosophy jobs. Philosophy is about being destitute and not fitting into society. Satyr is one of the best philosophers here, and he lives with his mom.

Shouldn't a philosopher live alone?

A philosopher is a person, first and foremost.

Should all people live alone?

Now apply that answer to philosophers.

Ben JS wrote:A philosopher is a person, first and foremost.

Should all people live alone?

Now apply that answer to philosophers.

Most of the best philosophers of all times lived alone.

Should all people be philosophers?

Most of the people should not live alone (thus: should not be philosophers).

Arminius wrote:

Ben JS wrote:A philosopher is a person, first and foremost.

Should all people live alone?

Now apply that answer to philosophers.

Most of the best philosophers of all times lived alone.

Should all people be philosophers?Most of the people should not live alone (thus: should not be philosophers).

Lovers of Wisdom, yes.
It would certainly create a better world if all people were philosophers - lovers of wisdom and truth too.
I can't begin to imagine what that world would look like. Maybe like some kind of a beautiful monastery where all men (and women) work together to achieve a common goal.

Why did most of the best philosophers live alone? I'm asking.
Was it because basically they needed the silence and the outer and inner space?
Was it because basically their lives stemmed around their thinking and seeking rather than working for money - though being a philosopher is truly working - mental labor is much more difficult than physical labor.
Even a modern-day philosopher who works at philosophy - a university or any another job, needs that SPACE for himself.
He chooses a solitary life in the name of his first lOVE AND and PASSION.

Arcturus Descending wrote:I can't begin to imagine what that world would look like. Maybe like some kind of a beautiful monastery where all men (and women) work together to achieve a common goal.

We dance.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Ooh, the spider speaks. Mighty brave 'talkin to a Trixie like that.

She's being competitive.

By the way, wasn't your ideal to destroy the universe?

Arminius wrote:

Do you really love philosophy?

Do I really love philosophy? Love? No, I don't love philosophy, but I like philosophy. Probably I like philosophy even very much, but I don't love philosophy.

But what about you? Do you really love philosophy?

Notice that the accentuation is on the word "love"!

One can love the next related and other next, but not the philosophy. Maybe I've merely mentioned a problem that belongs to the contrastive linguistics, because the English verb "love" is not exactly the same as e.g. the German verb "lieben", and the English substantive "love" is not exactly the same as e.g. the German substantive "Liebe", but even if it is so, it would also be a philosophical problem. The term "love" can refer to people, things, and everything else, but it doesn't do it to the same extent ​​or with the same intensity in all languages. What do you think, if someone says "I love stones" instead of "I like stones"? If "love" and "like" become the same or almost the same - I think that's the current semantic development of these two words -, then is is quite a loss of language and philosophy.

So again: Do you really love philosophy?

(Philosophy?)

I have wondered about this myself. I do not think I really love it. I hunger for it sometimes. I can't stop it. So, I concluded philosophy was a birth defect that I have.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Ooh, the spider speaks. Mighty brave 'talkin to a Trixie like that.

She's being competitive.

By the way, wasn't your ideal to destroy the universe?

Yes but I believe in upgrading the species first and letting them have their fun for a while.

objet petit a wrote:

Arminius wrote:

Do you really love philosophy?

Do I really love philosophy? Love? No, I don't love philosophy, but I like philosophy. Probably I like philosophy even very much, but I don't love philosophy.

But what about you? Do you really love philosophy?

Notice that the accentuation is on the word "love"!

One can love the next related and other next, but not the philosophy. Maybe I've merely mentioned a problem that belongs to the contrastive linguistics, because the English verb "love" is not exactly the same as e.g. the German verb "lieben", and the English substantive "love" is not exactly the same as e.g. the German substantive "Liebe", but even if it is so, it would also be a philosophical problem. The term "love" can refer to people, things, and everything else, but it doesn't do it to the same extent ​​or with the same intensity in all languages. What do you think, if someone says "I love stones" instead of "I like stones"? If "love" and "like" become the same or almost the same - I think that's the current semantic development of these two words -, then is is quite a loss of language and philosophy.

So again: Do you really love philosophy?

(Philosophy?)

I have wondered about this myself. I do not think I really love it. I hunger for it sometimes. I can't stop it. So, I concluded philosophy was a birth defect that I have.

Can philosophy be a "birth defect"?

It is a condition that I have suffered from since an extremely young age. As young as my memories go. No one else I know has it. it has impeded me from being what others call 'a success', or even 'socially acceptable'; maybe even 'compliable'. It must be a defect, then. So, a birth defect.

Arminius wrote:

objet petit a wrote:

Arminius wrote:

Do you really love philosophy?

Do I really love philosophy? Love? No, I don't love philosophy, but I like philosophy. Probably I like philosophy even very much, but I don't love philosophy.

But what about you? Do you really love philosophy?

Notice that the accentuation is on the word "love"!

One can love the next related and other next, but not the philosophy. Maybe I've merely mentioned a problem that belongs to the contrastive linguistics, because the English verb "love" is not exactly the same as e.g. the German verb "lieben", and the English substantive "love" is not exactly the same as e.g. the German substantive "Liebe", but even if it is so, it would also be a philosophical problem. The term "love" can refer to people, things, and everything else, but it doesn't do it to the same extent ​​or with the same intensity in all languages. What do you think, if someone says "I love stones" instead of "I like stones"? If "love" and "like" become the same or almost the same - I think that's the current semantic development of these two words -, then is is quite a loss of language and philosophy.

So again: Do you really love philosophy?

(Philosophy?)

I have wondered about this myself. I do not think I really love it. I hunger for it sometimes. I can't stop it. So, I concluded philosophy was a birth defect that I have.

Can philosophy be a "birth defect"?

Only perhaps if one or two of the parents had it within their bloodstream or thir genes.
I'd call philosophy more of a healthy, optimal addiction.

objet petit a wrote:It is a condition that I have suffered from since an extremely young age. As young as my memories go. No one else I know has it. it has impeded me from being what others call 'a success', or even 'socially acceptable'; maybe even 'compliable'. It must be a defect, then. So, a birth defect.

Bist Du sicher?
Are you sure?

"As young as your memories go" - that means: when you were about 2 to 3 years old. So you do still not know for sure whether it is a "birth defect" or not. And to "hunger for" philosophy "sometimes", as you said, does not necessarily mean that it is a "defect". But if you "can't stop it", as you also said, then it could probably be a "defect". Hmm ....

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

Arminius wrote:And what are your "ideals"?

My ideals, is that humans are mostly retards, and they need their DNA changed.

Those aren't ideals, Trixie. They are opinions.
Truth is beauty is an ideal.
Nature is Divine I think is an ideal.

Sorry Arc to change the venue, but i am so much enthralled. I am literally sitting in Les Deux Magots, on Boulevard St. Germain, sipping beer, (they still serve absenthe), where among others, Sartre sat ca. 1940-44. I have amazing vibes here, and next door
is another place Cafe de Flores, well it's indescribable, but i am in 7th heaven.
I am only writng this in support of the OP, that I
really love philosophy. The situation, the setting, the atmosphere, are all perfect, and it's a rainy day but sitting under a glass canopy, where i can see and smell the raindrops.


I am vey exited to be here and be able to share this experience with all at ILP.

Orbie wrote:Sorry Arc to change the venue, but i am so much enthralled. I am literally sitting in Les Deux Magots, on Boulevard St. Germain, sipping beer, (they still serve absenthe), where among others, Sartre sat ca. 1940-44. I have amazing vibes here, and next door
is another place Cafe de Flores, well it's indescribable, but i am in 7th heaven.
I am only writng this in support of the OP, that I
really love philosophy. The situation, the setting, the atmosphere, are all perfect, and it's a rainy day but sitting under a glass canopy, where i can see and smell the raindrops.


I am vey exited to be here and be able to share this experience with all at ILP.

Wow! I wish that i was with you there, sweet Rumi. It seems like a wonderful place to be. And the rain may be adding to the ambiance and (magic) of it. Rain is inspiring. You can imagine Sartre sitting across from you. What do you think his words might be to you? "Well, orbie I'm told that you absolutely love philosophy as I did" (that is, if he did love it as much as you do) He was an existentialist I think(?)
Enjoy your moments there. Are you getting sloshed again? Btw, I knew you were a bit sloshed when i read your words yesterday. Isn't absenthe the stuff that Sherlock Holmes drank and Dorian Gray in the book? Isn't that really strong stuff, orbie.

I love the smell of raindrops. I love each one individually.
Why don't you sit and write a poem, a short one or long one, while you're sitting there. Let Sartre inspire you.

No need to say sorry orbie. You're in the Do You really Love Philosophy thread so you're observing the spirit of the law and there is nothing wrong with saying "hello" to everyone from a place where Sartre once enjoyed his being.

I am enthralled along with you. Many happy moments, sweet Rumi. But be careful.


Il ya seulement un jour à gauche, en commençant toujours plus: Il nous est donné à l'aube et nous enlève au crépuscule ".
Sartre

orbie,

Happy Birthday Sweet Rumi. I didn't know.