+- Sinisterly (https://sinister.ly)
+-- Forum: General (https://sinister.ly/Forum-General)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://sinister.ly/Forum-The-Lounge)
+---- Forum: Serious Discussion (https://sinister.ly/Forum-Serious-Discussion)
+---- Thread: The perception of reason. (/Thread-The-perception-of-reason)
RE: The perception of reason. - Singularity - 12-24-2013
(12-24-2013, 12:15 AM)Gin Wrote: Resorting to name-calling isn't usually in the repertoire of teenagers who think they have life figured out. But if thinking of me as a monkey makes you feel better about this LQ thread, then so be it. As far as a philosophy that isn't based on what others say, why would I want to live by such a philosophy? I've heard a large amount of good advice over the course of my life and to create a philosophy that ignores all of that would be as silly as the one this thread is about. You're last statement before 'good luck' is much like you're philosophy in that it's insensible. The only advice I can give you is to stop trying to be so unique. Conforming to society isn't necessarily a bad thing.
We are all humans.
I believe for the most part that I understand what life really is
and all the variables along with it.
Although I am still learning and thinking of new things
I change my philosophy and look on life almost everyday.
Also I dont think that true philosophers should have a "repertoire"
and I dont see how name calling and losing your temper makes you less of
or more of a deep thinker. As I said, we are humans and especially at a young age
we still have lots to figure out.
Are you familiar with Nietzsche or Schopenhauer?
They were great philosophers and if they thought someone to be
an idiot they would outright call them one.
I do not think you should follow his philosophy or any other philosophy than your own.
I do not share the same culture or philosophy as any other individual.
I take what I like and I create something unique and what I think works the best.
If you want to conform to society so be it, but I do not believe we are in our right
mind around others, only as an individual you are truly yourself.
So I guess the point of this is that you cannot tell somebody that their philosophy is
right or wrong, all you can do is point out the good and the bad.
RE: The perception of reason. - Fallen - 12-24-2013
Quote:Resorting to name-calling isn't usually in the repertoire of teenagers who think they have life figured out.
There wasn't name calling involved.
Quote:But if thinking of me as a monkey makes you feel better about this LQ thread, then so be it.
It doesn't make me feel better that you're underdeveloped.
Quote:As far as a philosophy that isn't based on what others say, why would I want to live by such a philosophy?
You wouldn't. It's evident that you'd rather live other people's lives.
Quote:I've heard a large amount of good advice over the course of my life and to create a philosophy that ignores all of that would be as silly as the one this thread is about.
I understand. You're saying that your life is nothing more than a mere story and having that story told to you allows you to think on a metaphysical level.
Quote:You're last statement before 'good luck' is much like you're philosophy in that it's insensible.
Nonsense!
Quote:Conforming to society isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Conforming to society isn't necessarily a good thing.
RE: The perception of reason. - Grin - 12-24-2013
(12-24-2013, 12:31 AM)Singularity Wrote: We are all humans.
I believe for the most part that I understand what life really is
and all the variables along with it.
Although I am still learning and thinking of new things
I change my philosophy and look on life almost everyday.
Also I dont think that true philosophers should have a "repertoire"
and I dont see how name calling and losing your temper makes you less of
or more of a deep thinker. As I said, we are humans and especially at a young age
we still have lots to figure out.
Are you familiar with Nietzsche or Schopenhauer?
They were great philosophers and if they thought someone to be
an idiot they would outright call them one.
I do not think you should follow his philosophy or any other philosophy than your own.
I do not share the same culture or philosophy as any other individual.
I take what I like and I create something unique and what I think works the best.
If you want to conform to society so be it, but I do not believe we are in our right
mind around others, only as an individual you are truly yourself.
So I guess the point of this is that you cannot tell somebody that their philosophy is
right or wrong, all you can do is point out the good and the bad.
I hope you realize that the 'repertoire' thing was a joke about teenage kids who try to seem smart online by being pretentious when what they say is of little intellectual value.
I never said that you should follow someone else's philosophy to the word, only that your philosophies will often be based upon others.
All I am trying to say is that you shouldn't fight the social norms of society for the sake of fighting them. This philosophy is an example of that, and it is a waste of time. Whether a philosophy can be declared right or wrong is dependent on the philosophy.
(12-24-2013, 01:04 AM)Fallen Wrote: There wasn't name calling involved.
It doesn't make me feel better that you're underdeveloped.
You wouldn't. It's evident that you'd rather live other people's lives.
I understand. You're saying that your life is nothing more than a mere story and having that story told to you allows you to think on a metaphysical level.
Nonsense!
Conforming to society isn't necessarily a good thing.
You are truly pitiful. You created this thread in your race to some post count, failed to defend it and resorted to 'ad hominem'. I would say that I am an emotional person, so refraining from such attacks is difficult, but if I can do it in a discussion then I expect others to be able to do the same. This is literally an idiot philosophy for cowering away from defending a statement. Such a philosophy allows you to put forth any statement and it would be true by your logic, but this isn't possible deeming this philosophy wrong. I realize that your brain doesn't function very well from your posts and your age must be under 14. If you're any older than that you are just a petty user and you need to learn to do better. My first post was simply asking you to explain your philosophy in a blunt manner but you took it as some sort of personal attack and have been responding in a very poor manner ever since. There is no shame in admitting you were wrong, but for some reason you seem to think it's so. So either try and have an intellectual conversation in this section or stay out of it you insolent porch monkey.
RE: The perception of reason. - Fallen - 12-24-2013
Quote:All I am trying to say is that you shouldn't fight the social norms of society for the sake of fighting them. This philosophy is an example of that, and it is a waste of time. Whether a philosophy can be declared right or wrong is dependent on the philosophy.
Why do you insist on wasting your time?
Quote:This is literally an idiot philosophy for cowering away from defending a statement. Such a philosophy allows you to put forth any statement and it would be true by your logic, but this isn't possible deeming this philosophy wrong.
Define what "logic" is.
RE: The perception of reason. - Grin - 12-24-2013
(12-24-2013, 01:30 AM)Fallen Wrote: Why do you insist on wasting your time?
Define what "logic" is.
It's your philosophy that is a waste of time. And "logic" where it was used was your philosophy. Questions such as the second one have no relevance to the discussion as a whole and are simply a lame attempt to force me to trip up. Try harder you insolent feist.
RE: The perception of reason. - Fallen - 12-24-2013
(12-24-2013, 02:58 AM)Gin Wrote: It's your philosophy that is a waste of time. And "logic" where it was used was your philosophy. Questions such as the second one have no relevance to the discussion as a whole and are simply a lame attempt to force me to trip up. Try harder you insolent feist.
You said something about ad hominem...right?
RE: The perception of reason. - Grin - 12-24-2013
(12-24-2013, 03:44 AM)Fallen Wrote: You said something about ad hominem...right?
I'm not sure why you are bringing up fallacies when you have failed to even try to have a discussion.
RE: The perception of reason. - Feat - 12-24-2013
(12-22-2013, 06:26 AM)Fallen Wrote: What's science backed by?
Science is backed by observation and testing things multiple times to prove your hypothesis.
Fallen Wrote:Define, "real life".
Well for starters that as an improper placement for that comma. Secondly "real life" refers to what is tangible(physical, can be touched).
(12-24-2013, 01:04 AM)Fallen Wrote: There wasn't name calling involved.
You called him a monkey, I think that counts as some form of name-calling.
RE: The perception of reason. - Fallen - 12-24-2013
(12-24-2013, 06:01 AM)ABC Wrote: Science is backed by observation and testing things multiple times to prove your hypothesis.
Well for starters that as an improper placement for that comma. Secondly "real life" refers to what is tangible(physical, can be touched).
You called him a monkey, I think that counts as some form of name-calling.
Please read the whole thread before you reply to posts I've already replied to.
Thank you.
Also, you have yet defined what "real" life is.
RE: The perception of reason. - Feat - 12-24-2013
(12-24-2013, 07:17 AM)Fallen Wrote: Please read the whole thread before you reply to posts I've already replied to.
Thank you.
Also, you have yet defined what "real" life is.
Here, you want a definition?
Real:
1.Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence.
2. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal.