Cuck your mouths

[Berkley Babes]

God twat innit?

[iambiguous]

But I repeat myself: Great. Another yak, yak yakker bombarding the philosophy forum with inane drivel.

Only this time I am considerably more certain that this is what it is.

[Berkley Babes]

But I repeat myself: Great. Another yak, yak yakker bombarding the philosophy forum with inane drivel.

Only this time I am considerably more certain that this is what it is.

Yes, you wish this philosophy board is more than it is

[Magnus Anderson]

I think he merely wants it to be what it used to be.

[Berkley Babes]

I think he merely wants it to be what it used to be.

Fine enough, I've got to bail out, as I think i might puke

[iambiguous]

But I repeat myself: Great. Another yak, yak yakker bombarding the philosophy forum with inane drivel.

Only this time I am considerably more certain that this is what it is.

Yes, you wish this philosophy board is more than it is

Let's try this...

Take a bare-bones definition of philosophy:

"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about reason, existence, knowledge, values, mind, and language." wiki

So, here you are in a forum called "I love Philosophy". You go to the philosophy board and you post, "God twat innit?"

And then there's your signature:

"After I make a philosophical point, I make a sound that sounds like
'humpf' and I picture myself smoking a pipe. Nobody will remember me."

Just out of curiosity, how do you connect the dots here?

Sure, different people employ different meanings in regard to their own interest in philosophy. For example, my own revolves around the question "how ought one to live?". In a No God world. And, here, I am not inclined to explore this in "intellectual contraptions" embedded in "worlds of words" that steer clear of "particular contexts".

But that's just me. Others insist it is futile to go there until you have first pinned down a greater technical understanding of the human condition rooted in logic and epistemology.

And in these things: http://www.philosophyideas.com/files/in ... osophy.pdf

Whereas, I am more inclined to request of those who think that they do grasp these most fundamental aspects of philosophical reasoning to bring them "down to earth" and intertwine them "for all practical purposes" in the issue that most concern me: the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

I've even thought up a new "groot" to encompass the manner in which I'd like to explore this:

1] Noting the distinction between a frame of mind that revolves around a "real me" in sync and a set of moral and political values that are said to encompass objectively "the right thing to do", and "I" embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices...in the arguments I make for it/this in my signature threads; and specifically in this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 .

2] Noting that when someone does change their moral and political frame of mind, they are acknowledging that they were wrong about something in the is/ought world around them. And that, once they acknowledge this, they are acknowledging in turn they may well be wrong about other things. Finally, they are acknowledging that, yes, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, they might be prompted to change their minds again. And again.

3] As a consequence, what I suggest is that we focus in on a particular moral and political truth of theirs and given a set of circumstances we examine our respective moral and political philosophies.

4] Here, however, I'm less interested in simply articulating what we believe is true in the way of moral and political truths and more focused in how we would go about demonstrating to others that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think and to feel the same.

Care to go there yourself?

No, seriously.