The difference between philosophy and religion.

Cypress said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Nice try Cy, but you can't make a definitive statement on one end and they do a 180 to try and justify it.
NOTHING you stated even remotely affects the validity of my previous post. And riddle me this: all the folk you listed were recipients of what their society's individuals WHO WERE NOT CONSIDERED GENIUSES contributed. Food, clothing, utensils, how to survive in the environment, etc. Try being a "genius" when your butt is freezing because you don't know how to properly shelter or how to produce clothing for yourself....or for that matter properly find and/or store food, water.

The Vikings supposedly had no written language, yet they manufactured long trip sailing ships and forged swords that today cannot be easily duplicated in tensile strength. The Aborigines of Australia used their "magic" to light a signal fire that guided one of America's early manned orbital space flights when it was in trouble (they did NOT have a radio or TV in that part of the "Outback" at the time). Genius without recognition on all fronts. No shame or problem with acknowledging that later generations (i.e., you and I) greatly learn from such, but that does NOT validate your original statement on Post #133. My assessments of your statements stand valid.
Click to expand...


I thought this thread was about intellectual achievement, but if you want to discuss technological achievement, I would rank the Paleolithic hunter who invented the Clovis point, the Portuguese navigator who invented the lanteen sail, and the Neolithic inventor of the composite bow to be profoundly influential on human achievement.
Click to expand...

Actually, you seem to think that you can feign confusion as to what others state in response to your declarations. Sorry Cy, but you're not fooling anyone. Post #133 tells the tale, and for some strange reason you just can't flat out concede the point that your original statement was wrong. The chronology of the posts shows you trying to walk back your statement, but all you end up doing is essentially supporting what I'm stating without conceding the original point of contention. Sorry Cy, but that dog of yours just won't fly.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Actually, you seem to think that you can feign confusion as to what others state in response to your declarations. Sorry Cy, but you're not fooling anyone. Post #133 tells the tale, and for some strange reason you just can't flat out concede the point that your original statement was wrong. The chronology of the posts shows you trying to walk back your statement, but all you end up doing is essentially supporting what I'm stating without conceding the original point of contention. Sorry Cy, but that dog of yours just won't fly.
Click to expand...

The original exchange was about my comment stating that nobody on this board has ever made an original contribution to human philosophical and intellectual thought.

Cypress said:
You've never had an original philosophical thought in your life, though you imagine you have .

Every opinion you have about philosophy is the sum total of what you have read others write, filtered and distilled through your own experiences and biases.

Nobody on this board, not you, not me, not Jack have ever made any original contributions to philosophy or intellectual thought.
Click to expand...

Making an original philosophical and intellectual contribution to humanity is a really high bar to clear.

You responded with something about an "intellectual process", which I am not even sure what that means or how it relates to my post. Changing someone's opinion is an original contribution to human philosophical thought? Umm, okay.

Taichiliberal said:
Including intellectual thought in your assertion is incorrect. If someone presents an analysis or observation that leads you to change your opinion or belief, that is an intellectual process on both sides. This has happened over the years.
Click to expand...

You then subsequently started writing about the invention of utensils, swords, and the use of fire.

I do not know what utensils, swords and fire use have to do with my comment about original philosophical contributions.

But if you want to call the inventors of utensils and the Viking sword geniuses, I don't have a problem with that. None at all. Human ingenuity is certainly expressed in novel and important technological leaps.

--> In my opinion, human technological innovations are just as important as human philosophical and intellectual contributions, if not more so. The invention of the Clovis point or the lanteen sail are probably more important than anything Friedrich Nietzsche ever did.

But I didn't write anything about technology


Moral of the story: there have been some reasonably smart people on justplainpolitics com over the past 16 years. But I have never seen any intellectual giants here who are making truly original contributions to human philosophical and intellectual thought.

^^ That is just my opinion, and that is what I wrote in Post #130. I am not telling you what you need to believe
.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
The original exchange was about my comment stating that nobody on this board has ever made an original contribution to human philosophical and intellectual thought.



Making an original philosophical and intellectual contribution to humanity is a really high bar to clear.

You responded with something about an "intellectual process", which I am not even sure what that means or how it relates to my post. Changing someone's opinion is an original contribution to human philosophical thought? Umm, okay.



You then subsequently started writing about the invention of utensils, swords, and the use of fire.

I do not know what utensils, swords and fire use have to do with my comment about original philosophical contributions.

But if you want to call the inventors of utensils and the Viking sword geniuses, I don't have a problem with that. None at all. Human ingenuity is certainly expressed in novel and important technological leaps.

--> In my opinion, human technological innovations are just as important as human philosophical and intellectual contributions, if not more so. The invention of the Clovis point or the lanteen sail are probably more important than anything Friedrich Nietzsche ever did.

But I didn't write anything about technology


Moral of the story: there have been some reasonably smart people on justplainpolitics com over the past 16 years. But I have never seen any intellectual giants here who are making truly original contributions to human philosophical and intellectual thought.

^^ That is just my opinion, and that is what I wrote in Post #130. I am not telling you what you need to believe
.
Click to expand...

Your post assumes you could tell who's a "intellectual giant"! Perhaps there has been but their POV was above your intelligence level or at least knowledge level!
 
Sock Sockinski said:
Your post assumes you could tell who's a "intellectual giant"! Perhaps there has been but their POV was above your intelligence level or at least knowledge level!
Click to expand...

If you want to believe there are intellectual giants on justplainpolitics.com making original contributions to human philosophical and intellectual thought, that's fine.
 
Mr.Mason said:
The point is you don't need a college class to learn philosophy!
Click to expand...

My mother spent about 20 years just reading about philosophy on her own time, but it never hurts to learn information straight from the horse's mouth --> my mother also audited some classes of the French philosopher Michele Foucault when he was teaching at Berkeley.
 
Cypress said:
My mother spent about 20 years just reading about philosophy on her own time, but it never hurts to learn information straight from the horse's mouth --> my mother also audited some classes of the French philosopher Michele Foucault when he was teaching at Berkeley.
Click to expand...

Sounds like your Mom proved my point.
 
Sock Sockinski said:
My point is do you have the knowledge there hasn't been?
Click to expand...

For us normal people, almost all of our knowledge in mathematics, history, philosophy, economics is derivative and acquired from teachers, textbooks, acknowledged experts, articles, videos, etc.

Universities only give PhDs in philosophy, history, and math to people who actually make truly original contributions to human knowledge in those fields.

Bachelor's and Masters degrees are just given to people who demostrate basic competency in integrating subject matter knowledge and knowledge of research methods.

Moral of the story-- The PhD is a high bar for true intellectual originality.
 
Cypress said:
For us normal people, almost all of our knowledge in mathematics, history, philosophy, economics is derivative and acquired from teachers, textbooks, articles, videos, etc.

Universities only give PhDs to people in philosophy, history, and math to people who make actually truly original contributions to human knowledge.

Bachelor's and Masters degrees are just given to people who demostrate basic competency in subject matter knowledge and knowledge of research methods.

moral of the story-- The PhD is a high bar for true intellectual originality.
Click to expand...

And you know shit. You're a liar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top