On the one hand he is defending justice against Thrasymachus' claim that justice is the advantage of the stronger. — Fooloso4

Th...us claims what IS. Socrates describes what should be. The two are not on the same page

On the other, he is defending philosophy against sophistry and the claim that the sophist can teach the art of making the weaker argument stronger. — Fooloso4

... while he couldn't create an argument against the sophists' view, without proving sophistry right by applying the sophists' method or process.

My hangup was his argument against X...on*,who claimed happiness is the most valuable thing to attain; S replies, "would you settle to be a sea urchin, which is happy?" X...on recoils, he says definitely not; S cleans his sword of the blood of victory over X...on. Whereas S's argument was a simple case of Ad Hominem.

Funny that you mention justice, as my paper that every philosophical body in their right mind rejects, including the editors of articles of this site, and which I, in complete frustration, published here 4 days ago, and which everyone here also avoided commenting on as if it were Satan's very own bile, deals a bit with that issue (as a sideline, not germane to the main topic).

My words were made up, as an attempt at humour, in a roundabout way to show that I don't know what tendentious means. It was funny, but the reference connection was so weak, that it was completely lost to everyone but myself. I don't blame anyone else for this, it was quite natural to not see the connection in the way I meant it.

* X...on: abbreviation of a made-up name (ending with ...on, like many Greek names were at the time: Laokoon, Platon, etc.).

.

The common wheel took a genius to discover, some cultures never did. To dig under what ought to be obvious but isn't is one important purpose of philosophy. What more would you expect? — magritte

Yes, the invention was genius. Or an accident. Either way.

But to rename the wheel, after it had been invented thousands of years ago, and has been in constant use, and to explain how it works in language that reveals nothing new about the wheel, and yet it sounds creative; and to take credit for the explanation requires no genius. It is genius to explain the obvious that has not been explained before; but to explain the known obvious in different terms adding nothing new, and for which people worship the explainer, is not very ingenious -- neither on the part of the explainer, nor on the part of those who think the explainer is a genius.

Yeah. The products of those minds that have read neither widely nor deeply are unfortunately easily found hereabouts. — Banno

Yeah. I so totally agree. I may add that there are some extremely well-read minds around here, who hide behind jargon and throwing about big names but which minds nevertheless succeed to show very little original thought.

You, Banno, at least apply your knowledge appropriately. And my favourite contributor on these forums, Fooloso4, combines the two: a solid background knowledge and an ability to employ his or her agile mind to not only question and interpret the readings, but also to creatively build on its learned knowledge base.

Yes, there is always more reading to do. — Fooloso4

I wonder why most people read instead of figuring these things out for themselves. I mean, I don't wonder, it's obvious why. I just wanted to make others aware that their minds are an excellent source material, too, should they choose to employ it for that purpose.

I think it is much more valuable to learn to read a few books, slowly and carefully. — Fooloso4

... or not read at all, but use the arguments others make about this or that as your source material. The outcome is the same.

Of all that is written, I love only what a person hath written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit. — Nietzsche

This is both poetry and philosophy. I attest to its truth, that has been delivered to me by a movie plot by W. Allen, "Bullets Over Broadway". W. Allen's later movies serve as an excellent grounding in philosophy, for those who lack the financial resources to attend second-year university lectures.

Work on philosophy -- like work in architecture in many respects -- is really more work on oneself. On one's own conception. On how one sees things. (And what one expects of them.) (CV, 24) — Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein again very cleverly discovered the obviousity of the common wheel. You can't get out of your own mind obviously, whatever you study. This Wittgenstein was nothing but an incredibly clever observer, student, and bard of the blindingly obvious. It's just that he used language that made the worthless insights he mustered to master seem incredibly clever and deep. He was a loser, if you ask me, a worthless, two-penny thinker.

In a way he reminds me of Depak Chopra, inasmuch as both prove that humans are fooled by their own creation, language, and they value (involuntarily, or rather, inadvertently) glib over content.

Descartes used the terms mind and soul interchangeably — Fooloso4

Yes, perhaps you are right (I am not a judge of that), but WHICH of the two, soul or mind, is more redolent according to Descartes?

Plato is deep enough to allow for differing interpretations. — Fooloso4

This quote almost makes me want to read more Plato. I skimmed through the "Republic", and I found Socrates nothing but a clever arguer, with a sharp mind and incredible follow-through, however, someone also who never shied away from using psychological pressure to make his fallacious arguments stick. I think Socrates (at least in that book) came across as a person who had an insatiable appetite to win arguments.

To make things worse, I find you, Fooloso4, not only tendentious but also void of moral deplitude, clearly intrapretational, and definitely procumptious.

I basically agree. I do think our age has some noble spirits though. — j0e

Yes, for instance, the immediate past POTUS today. Or Putin. Or Netanyahu. Or Csontvary Koska Tivadar from the Jozsefvaros. Basically anyone who is not afraid to show their satisfation with being outstanding, and willing and wishing to reap the rewards for their outstanding contributions.

I must confess that I do not know what Nietzsche means by noble spirits. — Fooloso4

The little I know about Nietzsche tells me (not me, I ain't telling this to myself) that it's the opposite of the slave spirit. The slave spirit is the birthchild of Christianity: always apologetic, pleading, happy with little favours, not thinking of himself or herself worthy of large favours.

Consequently the noble spirit is not apologetic (therefore dares to look out for numero uno), proud of his or her personal achievements, and does not hide his or her joy over the right to be proud; and feels entitled.

Capitalism is despicable. A large-scale robbery. The rich are getting richer and are doing their best to steal more from the poor. A country in which the salary of a waiter depends on tips is a despicable country. — gikehef947

I agree with you. But the poor are not getting poorer. On the long run anyhow. People in highly capitalist countries enjoy a better lifestyle than in non-capitalist countries. So while the distribution of wealth is highly uneven, it is still more equitable and fair than in any country in the world, except another capitalist country.

You can't eliminate needs by meditation. — Gregory

Absolutely right. So... how does the meditation connect to the need stuff then? Any connection? I mean, if it is not connected to needs, then why meditate? Clarity? Clarity is something that is realized. What do you aim to realize with meditation? If it is not connected to Buddhism, then meditation is a practice that benefits anyone, Buddhist or otherwise... why does Buddhism then own meditation?

I am now really confused. Is mediation a Buddhist practice, or a practice that Buddhists do, but it's not exclusive to Buddhism? In that case, it is a path that anyone can take, in any situation.

We talk about Buddhism, though. If meditation is inclusive of other walks of life, then why insist that clarity via meditation is Buddhist? And if if it is not a Buddhist thing exclusively, then what IS the essence of Buddhism?

As far as I know, the Buddha taught that needs are the source of suffering. Meditation does not alleviate it, you say. So what is it, that a Buddhist is to do? The thing that makes him into a Buddhist. What area of life has what belief or what behaviour pattern is exclusive to Buddhism?

I am asking because I don't know. It's an honest question. If meditation is a tool that potentially anyone and everyone could use, what is a behaviour that is strictly Buddhist?

Other religions — synthesis

I think you are comparing apples to oranges with this stance. Buddhism is not a religion. It invokes no deity, it uses no supernatural elements to guide one's life, it uses no supernatural elements (i.e. gods) to whom you can appeal to, or bribe with sacrifices, to help you achieve this or that of your earthly ambitions.

Buddhism is not a religion. Please don't compare it to religions. I mean, you can, but I, for one, resent it if you do.

Its comparison to Marxist-Leninist Bolshevik communism is more apt, inasmuch as both are theories. One is about social movement as reflected by economical arrangements, the other is about individual human psychology. There is an overlap between the two. The two are comparable, or at least mutually non-exclusive by way of being mere theories, while communism is mutually exclusive, therefore incomparable, with religions.

Yes and no. The main difference is that the practice of meditation is the method taught to achieve clarity. Other religions (including the intellectual aspects of Buddhism) are creating an intellectual narrative. In Buddhism, the main purpose for this is to reveal to the follower that meditation is the path. — synthesis

I think meditation IS the path, you are absolutely right about that. But what every Buddhist believes (if they actually follow The Buddha) is that human needs are the path to suffering. To eliminate suffering therefore you must eliminate the feeling of the needs --

Am I right in this assessment of Buddhist ideology at its most basic?

If yes, then you reveal that meditation is a path, a service route to eliminate the feeling of needs. Meditation reveals to you the clarity of how to achieve a life without needs.

If no, you don't agree that the most basic tenet of Buddhism is that needs create suffering, then I'm really interested in what you think Buddhist ideology is at its most basic.

Remember, meditation is not an ideology, it's a path. A method. A tool. It is not what meditation does that I wish you can tell me. I wish you could tell me what you believe the basic ideology of Buddha's beliefs is, if different form "needs create suffering, and you must eliminate needs."

I think Buddhism allows different degrees of adherence to its own tenets, because it (the ideology) recognizes that full-blown compliance would lead to the unanimous annihilation of the individuals who practice Buddhism.

I understand. I am just saying that Buddhism is not about anything in particular, instead, it's about seeing all things as clearly as possible. — synthesis

My understanding of Buddhism is completely different. It prescribes a certain ideolgy, that must be the shaper of the conduct of a Buddhist's life. The ideology is clear, well defined, and restrictive.

I don't know this part, but my impression is that the ensuing behaviour based on the Buddhist ideology is not as restrictive as the ideology itself.

it's about seeing all things as clearly as possible. — synthesis

This statement describes the teachings of all religions and ideologies, from their own perspective. No ideology or religion teaches "this is the set of our rules and this is what you must believe, but actually the one and only true religion is the one you only hear about and which is totally different from ours."

The new testament says to obey the powers that have the authority, although Jesus himself refused to take sides between the Jews and the Romans — Gregory

It was hard to decide which power had the authority: Judea, or Roma. If Jesus had a clear knowledge which, he would have sided to obey that one. But he had no way of relying on the old adage that we use these days in times of facing hard decisions. He could not ask, "Now, what would Jesus do?"

Write (Right) meaning Time will tell of your character and what you leave behind. — RBS

What you leave behind is of no concern to you after you have left it behind. If you believe in Heaven and Hell, then you're in eternal bliss, so nothing matters, or else in eternal pain, when nothing matters since you can't change it. If you totally die, your spirit or soul or conscience perishes, then, again, there is no consequence to you what people think of you after you pass away.

The only way to enjoy or be bitter about your own posterity is to become a ghost that walks the Earth. And we ALL know ghosts don't exist.

fair enough

That's why we had the revolutions. To show the world, that rulers can be broken. "We avenged the suffering of millions. They did not have to die in vain because we bravely advanced, and did not let our swords rest, until... until...uh ... until..." "Idiom, Sire?" "Yes! Idiom!"

On the other hand, I'm too lazy to invest the thought it requires to consider the desires of each different individual I run into. This person want this, that person wants that. — James Riley

Back in post-feudal Hungary (and I suppose in all other post-feudal European countries; and would not be surprised to hear it is / was / has been the case in most cultures) as recently as the end of the second world war, there were something like 17 different ways of saying "you", depending on the social status of the person addressed, and in some cases, the relativity of the social status of the person addressed compared to the person addressing. Some of the "you"-s even commanded different persons (as in plural-singular, and second- or third person) in the conjugation of the verb in the address.

And you needed to know the status of your vis-a-vis before you could properly address them.

Now if you add non-binary sexual or gender definitions, the number of "you"-s could very easily reach three-digit counts.

I don't see how having strong opinions about how others should live their lives is in any way complementary to Buddhist ideas. I'd sooner consider it contrary. — Tzeentch

This statement is in strong contradiction to the fact that schools of Buddhism exist. Buddhism DOES want to tell to others (at least to those who ask for it) how to live. Very, very much so.

Granted, Buddhists don't tell people who are not interested in Buddhism how to live the Buddhist way, while communist agit-prop (agitational propaganda) does.

This previous post of mine was made in good humour, but not in jest or disrespect. It is very apropos to the conversation.

"We are the knights of ik. Bring us more... SHRUBBERY!!"

Yes, yes. And also note please: Arbitrary decisions are the easiest to make. If we were forced to make a decision on knowledge which is well-thought out, solid, and makes a point, we'd be hard pressed.

So far philosophy of epistemology has not only shown that knowledge is impossible (except the knowledge of the impossibility of knowledge) but also that arbitrary decisions on what truth is can't be beaten. Can't be beaten for reliability, ease, and comfort.

The best solution to date to epistemological questions is a Lexus or a Cadillac.

I am a skeptic, and I choose things to believe, while choosing other things to not believe. Ultimately, I appreciate that the real world (things that exist) are unfathomable for man, for we rely on our senses and sensations to detect the real world, and there is no telling if that channel is at all reliable.

So in a sense I accept that my reality is / may be a phantom, or it may actually be the real deal. In my everyday movements, I CHOOSE to act in the belief that the reality I sense is the reality I live in. As I often say, in the words of the proverbial umpire, "I calls them as I sees them".

Hume, Russell and and the third guy have different views, or not... whether you accept reality full blast, or not at all, or somewhere in-between in the gradual transition (spectrum), is arbitrary, just like my choice is arbitrary. If you want to get away from arbitrariness, you must also get rid of skepticism, because that view in and by itself is also arbitrary.

So if you keep skepticism, you are forced to be arbitrary in your world view. If you throw away skepticism, then you are automatically arbitrary (from a skeptic's viewpoint).

If a philosopher contributes nothing whatsoever to humanity -- if he "need not have a contribution," then yes I consider that an utter waste of life, whether he "enjoys" it or not.

Have you read Rilkmund? According to him, being and trying to be "useful" is a waste of life, a waste of time. Much like the useful people can denigrate the useless people, so can the useless people look down on the useful people. The upshot, from both camps, is that "She is different from me, and I'm all right."

A perfect example of this is a sense of humour. There used to be a dating site, maybe it's still out there, run and owned by a humourless individual. He considered humour, jokes, completely invaluable, a total waste of human effort. To me humour is the ultimate joy, the ultimate contribution. He hated me, I hated him, especially after he deleted my best one-liners. We both despised the other, based on a very fundamental difference, which could only be appreciated by the side that you sat on.

This is the same with the useful / useless division. I am not saying that useless people have the right to call useful people useless. I am saying that value judgment can't be independent of what side you are on... ultimately deciding who is a good person, and who is not (morally) rests in the hands of the judge, no matter what her opinion is. This of course invites the Autodafe, the Nazi-created Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, domestic violence, et cetera.

Is that better? Violence due to different ideologies, rather than peace via tolerance? I should say peace via tolerance is better, and that can't be fathomed again by the "must contribute" faction...

This can't be decided by philosophical arguments, only by grabbing weapons.

In which case I'd recommend anyone run as fast as possible from philosophy. — Xtrix

Absolutely, absolutely. Provided for that person philosophy is to serve as a support agent. For me philosophy is compelling, inasmuch as I can't divorce myself from it; I love it; I enjoy it. I love it partly because it's beautiful, and partly because I get positive enjoyment from it, with just the right amount of effort put into it.

So in a sense, philosophy is a support agent for me too, but in a different sense: it is my wild mistress, I love it for its own being, our relationship is playful and sensuous, it is not something I need praise or a sense of purpose to provide me with.

"You Are What You Do"

I am what I eat.

As for the moral character and internal self, I am what I think. Not what I do. I do not do much. I eat, basically, metabolize and empty myself. I don't do much. If I were what I did... have you, those who subscribe to the truth of the title of the thread, done much? I can count on one hand the people I've met socially or professionally who have DONE something. By "Do" I mean something that is worthwhile, unique, and not a copy-cat-do.

If you did not direct your message at me, but to show like-minded people where I went wrong, which I am (perhaps allegedly) unable to comprehend anyway, then of course please do not feel obliged to explain your message to me.

He obviously did not think God had died and was, to some extent, borrowing that phrase, probably from Hegel. — Tom Storm

How did you arrive at "obviously he did not think God had died"? Nietzsche painstakingly described precisely what he meant by this, but you just slide over his argument. You are actually right, he viewed god's death as a symbol for people abandoning morals and beliefs provided by and sustained and fostered by the Christian faith practitioners. Nietzsche did not talk of God as a real religious deity; he talked of god as a feature of social influence.

Could you describe SENSIBLY what you mean to say? You are a bit mystical in your style. I don't do mysticism well-- it's a bunch of lies if you ask me what people substitute for fear of seeing reality. Mysticism is for people who can't handle reality.

Nietzsche did not kill God. He traces God's death back to the Enlightenment. — Fooloso4

God's death was a multi-step process. Several generations of assassins were needed to complete the job from start to finish. It was not an easy or trivial task. I mean, just think about the scope, depth and breadth of the target.

God is already dead. — Fooloso4

But his spirit survives.

Ouch.

You know how to shut a person up: just pile on a whole bunch of totally unrelated negative charges, state conclusions that are damaging but have nothing to do with the subject material, and claim I based some of my ideas on yours.

You are full of hatred, that's the only insight I garnered from your response. You made no sensible point, and you spewed a bunch of hate-inciting opinions on me, that have nothing to do with anything.

Thank you very much for your response, your intention to hurt and your insanely irrelevant opinions showed to me in no uncertain terms that you are beneath worthy of ever reading your posts.

I must have said something in the middle of the first page that people here think it's incredibly stupid, or incredibly smart, because nobody referred it. Or maybe the perception is that it's incredibly ignorable. My view certainly does not lend itself to the learned arguments over philosophies of hifolutin' law practicing dudes, but I believe what I said was rock solid.

No. If anything, the deciding factors are 1. a person's socio-economic class, 2. that classes don't mix well.

Simply put: rich people (or those aspiring to be so) will not deem arguments from poor people as credible (regardless what the argument is about), and vice versa. — baker

I agree, and wish to add that other divisions also create credibility (and the opposite): level of smarts, level of religiosity, level of physical strength or athletic ability, level of good looks!! Yes, look at the celebrity thing. Level of social status, level of talent (among writers, artists and performers), etc. All divisions by sub-culture have their heroes. Heck, even being well-groomed and well-dressed (and the opposite) can give preconceptions to one's credibility or not.

How about on matters such as ethics, politics, social theory, etc? — schopenhauer1

Well, yes, how about them?

This _is_ interpreting them. — baker

There is a difference between comprehension and interpretation. "I calls them as I sees them" is an interpretation on the level of sensing (seeing, hearing, etc.). If you like, there are several stages, or levels, of interpretation. Higher level interpretations are done, for example, to hammer sense into the self-contradictory terms of the holy scriptures. If you need higher level interpretation to explain something, most likely you can explain it many different and incongruent ways. On the sensation level there is just one way to interpret.

We don't understand gravity. — Manuel

And we don't need to understand it, either. You seek meaning where there is no meaning. This is a mindset problem, not a philosophical problem.