Stosh

What happened to these kindergarteners ! , when I was that age I was trying to get shoes on the correct foot. Just tell these geniuses the truth, that for all known history , humans have always existed. Then wait for them to get a bit older and bring up the monkey thing.

Yes, I took the concept there as well, might you correct my spelling since its so big now ?

What of, origin of mankind? bananas or fake universes..

I did supply my arguments , I just didnt preface them as, ' these are my arguments' The cup thing and the horse thing have already been expounded , I assumed you were familiar with them and didnt have to elaborate. Plato postulates the abstracts are real and the material is just a shadow of the true reality. So he is postulating that there is a more real reality,, a SECOND reality. well the second reality of a horse has to have some form to distinguish it from the perfect table, So it must have characters like color. The perfect white horse is white the perfect tick is on the perfect horse and so on. This is a Duplication of the reality we know ,but saying this other is real but we cant see it. So when the guy says he saw plato's cup, but not its cupness, he's saying that from in this world you cant prove the abstraction. Eventually philosophy moved on, to regard that the specific item was perfectly whatever it was, and dumped the waste of time envisioning a duplicate universe. Personally, I take the practical stance that discovering something to be moot, or useless, or a waste of time, to be sufficient 'proof' ! Like anyone else, once theyve determined something to be a waste of time , they stop, its very handy to accept this standard as a logical proof. f you want to argue the valiidity of tsomething you consider a waste of time thats an error in judgement IMO

Close Karl, Im arguing that if the concept is the reality , then my concept that its BS would have to be the reality. If actual reality is whats real and I call that platonic thing BS, its still really BS. I win!! .. Platonic realism was discounted in western philosophy thousands of years ago Its unprovable. Sure Im perhaps borrowing the concept, but one has to make a proof in the realm that supports something which could be construed as evidence. I cant prove that this whole world is fake from here because all my evidence would be considered fake. As far as we can determine from here, the specific white horse , exists in some way , even if its transient , the perfect horse abstract is inferred. I have seen platos cup and plato's table, but I have not seen his cupness and tableness. All the idea does is create a duplicate universe exactly like the one we are in. The white of the horse I see is an abstract too , so the white horse of normal perception is exactly like its platonicly real horse.

B S , IS one of them there perfect form intrinsic concepts that you cant interact with, like numbers. Its a perfect form that exists as a perfect concept only and has been transmitted to me, the person viewing it. And I think this is a good argument, because you cant prove that its not without refuting platonic realism..

Care to test this? Ok, You should tell the truth and hold true to your own honesty and wash your hands clean of their fate. . . . See, you havent changed your mind, you just rejected what differed. Youre asking what right and wrong are but you think you already know.

Its just an opinion, but, perhaps more beneficial than the question as posed , would be to ask onesself what factors would one consider in making the decision.Then ask oneself what weight would every consideration carry vs the others in every situation imagineable. Because the odds are no ones response is likely to shift your values. You will defy anyone who decides other than yourself, and agree with whomever agrees. Duh !

Not having taken Philosophy in college , I thought I'd look this up ... WTF ????? From wikipedia .. Platonic realism Regardless of their description, Platonic realism holds that universals do exist in a broad, abstract sense, although not at any spatial or temporal distance from people's bodies. Thus, people cannot see or otherwise come into sensory contact with universals, but in order to conceive of universals, one must be able to conceive of these abstract forms. From google re·al·ism ˈrē(ə)ˌlizəm/ noun the attitude or practice of accepting a situation as it is and being prepared to deal with it accordingly. "the summit was marked by a new mood of realism" synonyms: pragmatism, practicality, common sense, levelheadedness "optimism tinged with realism" the quality or fact of representing a person, thing, or situation accurately or in a way that is true to life. "the earthy realism of Raimu's characters" synonyms: authenticity, fidelity, verisimilitude, truthfulness, faithfulness "a degree of realism" So Im thinking this 'platonic realism', is different from realism ,, it is actually what we ordinarily call bullshit.

...for instance,,that the genetic lineage can be traced to a common ancestor, does not mean that the traits we exhibit, were not sourced even earlier. Because mitochondria and chromosomes are not all passed on as a set. Crossovers can have introduced lines other than an ancestral eve had. Species are not actual divisions , so one cant say humans evolved at any particular time, or in one place ,or that sapiens is even the grouping which describes all modern humans. What does exist are individuals , the rest is fancy arbitrary classification which is used to lump or split nonspecific masses of people.

Few of the facts presented in the vid can be said to be actual fact, it may be easy but its strewn with false assumptions.

Tauhou is the bird, dunno the plant.

"Hatred never ceases by hatred;by love alone is it healed.This is the ancient and eternal law" Oh, I should edit this to mention I dont actually think this is correct . Its flat out wrong. Sorry If I was confusing. I just brought it up for consideration figuring it would be recognized.

Yeah , it would be nicer if they didn't make so much noise.

To me,, it sounds like they wanted to talk with you , but didnt have anything intelligent to say, so It probably works out to be a compliment. Many of us Americans are socially clumsy....umm like myself. Unlike Mh and Manitou ,who certainly have more grace.

Junco ? Any one of several species of birds habitating elevated ground, that folks have a hard time differentiating,,, and also some kind of reed I never heard of. .. From wikipedia,, Names are arbitrary though.

I admit I didnt catch that subtlety. I know that MH. I get wrapped up in details out of habit.

Im neverminding as well , but Yes ,they were other people,,, so one has to look to those chapters to decide if they are "consistently associable" with the philosophy of the original author. You cant associate them with the original author , as a logical argument , to prove they are the same persons philosophy. As best as you, I ,Lin ,,,all know, they probably werent the same guy and so they may not be expressing the same ideas. You have to look at the content and ignore the context. I thought that was the object of the discussion , to look at the content and discuss what it meant.

I'm assuming this is the definition which applies to the title, but frankly the passage as I read it from Watson, didnt impress me much. This other description , following ,, isnt clear either. Is the subject... zeit·geist or are we talking dogma.. I dont see how this passage defines one of the three goblet word ...ummm habits. This chapter isnt simple, and I dont get at all that there are goblet words ,,specific words, which convey paradox ,irony, and denegation But nevermind , Im not trying to trap you or trip you up , weve been through this scenario before ,, Ill just skip it and you can too. Nevermind, movin on.

It is my understanding that only the Inner Chapters can be said to be Chuang Tzu original. It is argued that even the Outer chapters were edited after Chuang Tzu' death. When we speak of Chuang Tzu I doubt any support could be given to suggest he ever talked about dogma. Therefore, for us to speak of his dogmatism would be far off course. That the content of the passage cant be about dogma, since he didnt talk about it. also, we dont know for sure this outer passage was written by him either. I have been known to do that. A = B, therefore, B = A. The concepts within the Outer Chapters are consistently associable to the Inner Chapters therefore they are valid. I am at peace with my understandings. Your'e still making a circular argument to discount only one of several possibilities and youre saying you dont give a shit that your argument isnt logical , and bypassing the multiple questions I put out to you. You cant make the argument the chapter is consistent with the rest, if the reason you say the chapter has to be consistent with the rest is that the rest are consistent with it. Less precise but maybe clearer, Youre disputing my point rather than supplying a logical alternative and blowing past the questions I do have for you.

Good for you. While thats evidently true, its not logical reasoning , since the basis for the statement is the same as the conclusion. Agreed Good for you. But you have presented a argument against mine for no logical reason ,, why do you extend to me conflict based on nothing? Then you wouldn't have any faith in this chapter , why bring it up? If you have no faith in the content , have no desire to be in accord with myself , and have no logic to present on it? Maybe its just early in the morning and you're grumpy , but you don't have to pass it on y'know. Fine , but thats a different subject I think and we haven't dealt with this one yet. Well Mr Wang took a stab at it. but I have doubts too about that myself.

Im not saying what I consider this passage to be, or saying he was being dogmatic ..yet. What in this post I am saying is you have responded with a circular argument against the idea. That the content of the passage cant be about dogma, since he didnt talk about it. also, we dont know for sure this outer passage was written by him either. Reading the other guys intro , I dont see how this passage defines one of the three goblet word ...ummm habits. He does use irony ,possibly the other two,denegation and paradox,, but in chapter 12 , clarity and simplicity in speech is promoted. This chapter isnt simple, and I dont get at all that there are goblet words ,,specific words, which convey paradox ,irony, and denegation. It sounds like made up thing.

Simple Definition of input. : advice or opinions that help someone make a decision. : information that is put into a computer. : something (such as power or energy) that is put into a machine or system. I'm assuming this is the definition which applies to the title, but frankly the passage as I read it from Watson, didnt impress me much. This other description , following ,, isnt clear either. By: Prof. Youru Wang Chapter 27 of the book Zhuangzi provides its own characterization of Zhuangzi's three modes of discourse — dwelling words (yuyan), double-layered words (chongyan) and goblet words (zhiyan). Among the three modes, that of goblet words is most important and is concerned with the more philosophical aspect of Zhuangzi's communicative strategy. This paper will investigate the strategies of denegation, paradox and irony as three kinds of "goblet words" used by Daoist Zhuangzi. The use of denegation, paradox and irony, in the Zhuangzi, is referred to as diaogui (paradoxical speech), miuyou zhishuo (absurd speech), and the like. Indeed, denegation, paradox and irony are very good examples of Zhuangzi's goblet words and his strategy of indirect communication. Besides, I have chosen the use of denegation, paradox and irony in the Zhuangzi as a special part of my investigation of Zhuangzi's indirect communication for the following reasons: (i) the use of denegation, paradox and irony carries heavy weight in Zhuangzi's strategy of indirect communication and his philosophical style; (ii) the use of denegation, paradox and irony in the Zhuangzi has regained its attraction due to postmodern attention to the strategic link between deconstruction and negative theology, to the study of the various strategies of denegation, paradox and irony. My investigation of Zhuangzi's use of denegation, paradox and irony will address those issues that have been inquired into by contemporary philosophical discourse. Is the subject... zeit·geist ˈtsītˌɡīst,ˈzītˌɡīst/ noun the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time. or are we talking dogma..

He he he, yep.

So much for linking, The swirling river swished past my umbrella. No surprise there though..the channels too deep.