it is a little hard to read.... /quiet voice at the back

Are you unaware of the multi-quote facility or deliberately non-conformist? Sometimes conformity on more trivial matters can be a good tool to highlight those areas where it is imperative to go against the flow...

Just sayin'

as you were.

(or not)

I'm aware of the quote function. I'm not making some kind of statement.

I just like the way I do things.

If others don't like the way I do things, what I have to say, or the way I say it: they can go away.

Seems pretty damned simple to me.

to me to. no offence was intended.

no offence was intended
 

Same here: you asked an honest question; made an honest point.

I did the same, so, peace, monster, peace...HA!

hey, I'm chilled :lol:

world peas
 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Never could stand peas. Vile things. ;)

ok lets see ...

1) I initially found you intriguing. That lasted till you were repeatedly asked for supporting info, and/or clarifications and you repeatedly couldn't or wouldn't.

2) Your opinion of me is meaningless. You don't know me nor anything about me.

3) At this point, I'll take the "I don't like you" option and move on for now.

4) Perhaps another time/place... stranger things have happened. Its too bad, you came highly recommended.

5) Then again, after finding out your were/are somehow related to PD ... I should have known better than to bother.

yet again: get bent
 

go away, pussy

Fuck you. See how clear that is.

That is crystal clear Griff - making your post not just readable, but damned enjoyable.

Fuck you
 

Likewise, I'm sure... ;)

This morning I slept past the usual time I get up. I woke to my cat. He would gently tap my cheek once with his paw then sit there staring at me. I would barely open one eye and doze back off then he would gently tap my cheek once again. I am not sure how many taps it took for me to awaken fully but I remember three and it looked as though he had been sitting there for awhile just methodically tapping my cheek in a sneaky..'it wasn't me kind of way'.

I know he was hungry as usual but I thought it was quite the use of subterfuge for an animal. It was nothing less than sneaky. How did he come up with that if it's all about instinct? He has never done that before.

The cat was hungry, you are its source of food, you overslept (I presume past its normal feeding time), it wanted food, it went to the source.

Don't underestimate the complexity of the animal or downplay the intricacies of instinct. I don't. I also don't mistake instinct and training for 'self', or person-hood.

Your animal can learn, can adapt, is relatively intelligent, but it doesn't self-reflect, has no consciousness of self, isn't an 'I'.

Your cat didn't say to itself, 'gee, I'm hungry...Sky is dragging ass this morning...I best go and rouse her'.

Instead: the animal is hungry...habit and routine say food should be in place...it's not...you are the source of food...cat goes to the source of food...cat taps you on the face, not to rouse you, but to get food.

Seems to me a perfectly reasonable chain of events having nothing to with understanding, or 'I'ness.

hehehe

See you can do animal talk.:)

He has such a Garfield face so I got a chuckle out of your animal ad lib.

Even while negating the likelihood there is that part of you that went so far as to imagine what the cat might say and that image is the one I like best.

Plus it makes life more fun.;)

that image is the one I like best
 

and: that's fine, Sky.

I have no problem with agreeing to disagree... ;)

I am not exactly disagreeing either. It's not about proving or disproving. I'm just picking and choosing. I choose to see this in a subjective rather than a critical or objective way. I know there must be a smidgen of truth in what you say. Much of science agrees with you.

Perhaps only critical and objective statements are best for a philosophy thread and I am way off the mark but there doesn't seem to be much critical analysis happening here anyway so I thought to have fun with it.

Sorry, don't know you that well other than being repeatedly offended by you and your generally unsupported, hard to read opinions Henry, but THIS post was completely uncalled for. Classic was asking for you to support or defend your opinion, simply because he had a conflicting opinion that he CAN support. You calling him names completely wiped away all respect I may have once had for you.

Just because you're lonely and sad and can't believe that any being might love you unless they SAY IT, doesn't mean you are right. I know my cat loves me, and I know lots of people on this planet are filled with love even though they can't SAY THOSE WORDS right now.

"I am not exactly disagreeing either."

Even among hardcore analytic philosophers ambiguity abounds, so, no worries Sky.

#

"THIS post was completely uncalled for."

I disagree.

There will only be peace once we are all crushed into a singularity

the word peace has lost its meaning.
its used to describe war.

it is not within our nature to have peace.
we've always made war, and we will always make war.
within human perception, war is as much a god as jesus or allah.

in this day and age, with human over-population, war holds greater value than peace.
war is a blessing if you think about it, much like a virus, aids, homo-sexuality and natural disasters.
our deaths need to start out-numbering our births.
some nations need to follow in china's footsteps.

Shawn, that's gonna call for you not to stay vulnerable to that. If the opposition can pants you and put you over a barrel, be sure they will. If they even think they can, they'll try. If they think your butt is cuter than LabRat's, they'll try all the harder. If they're old enough not to give a damn about cellulite, "old age and treachery" gets into it too. Hard to win when you're over a barrel.

There's a LOT of hemipygian philosophy written on the 'Net. If you don't like hemipygian, try sophomoric -- the word springs from "wise fool," you know.

(And maybe next time I come here I'll read the entire thread and say something really relevant instead of peripheral. 'Til then...)

Oh, I hope you say something relevant. I've been waiting for so long. I think it's somewhere buried deep inside your irrelevance. A relevance cocoon, if you will.

Keep me posted. Ta ta!

:D That was funny.

Peace, I think, is another of those great, but sometimes useful, fictions like equality, justice, morality, ethics, etc.

A wonderful carrot to focus everyone's attention on, a goal to chase and devote one's self to. Always unobtainable.

#

And: dogs still can't love...HA!

Peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics (did you skip 'love' on purpose?). They aren't fictions. They're quite important. They're just hard to define in concrete terms.

If what dogs do isn't love (or at least companionship), then it's a really good imitation.

Peace is relative and more often remembered than experienced.

"Peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics (did you skip 'love' on purpose?). They aren't fictions. They're quite important. They're just hard to define in concrete terms."


In a philosophical sense they are fictions: peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics, these and others, only exist as compact or agreement between individuals. That is: for peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics to exist they must cudgeled together by individuals, then, agreed upon. To agree upon something requires at least two individuals.

Love too is a fiction, but a slightly different order of fiction, one that requires only 'one'. For example: if I'm right and dogs can't love, then the wholly reasonable love you feel for Fido is not reciprocated. This one-way love doesn't invalidate the love. Your love is something 'you' do whether or not the object (or subject) of your love feels, or is capable of feeling, the same.

What makes them all fiction (philosophically) is -- again -- the necessity that 'you' and/or 'me' 'do' them.

Also: peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics, democracy, etc., I maintain, are essentially unobtainable because each requires at least two to agree. Plenty of agreement there is, in the short-term...

Love (along with hate) has the virtue (or vice), being as it is 'done' by one, of potentially existing as long as the one does.

Nonetheless: kill all humans, everywhere, one minute from now, and peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics, love, democracy, hate, etc. (all esoterica) die with us.

The world has an objective reality independent of what you or I think or feel about it. But only you and me, him and her, and them, bring subjectivity (meaning) to the world.

So: forgive my imprecision. I don't mean to denigrate these 'fictions', only to label them as such and to place them properly 'within' 'you' and 'me'. That is: peace, equality, justice, morality, ethics, love and all the others are what we, as individuals, 'do'.

#

"If what dogs do isn't love (or at least companionship), then it's a really good imitation."


Dogs make great companions! For reasons that have nothing to do with love as you 'do' it.

And: computers can be made to be quite convincing in text responses to questions, so much so that, initially, it's hard to tell if the 'person' on the other end is a person or not.

A prepared response (a programmed computer or informally trained dog) does not a person or lover make...