You keep trying to change the subject. You appealed to authority by claiming that Socrates agreed to your definition and thus it must be so. When called on it, you flinched. Then later in the discussion, when we were talking about what motivates the masses, you tried to say that it was a synthesis of both philosphical musing (nonsense) and natural motivators (truth). Again, you were called on it, and flinched. However this time you tried to mask this by claiming I had somehow envoked an appeal to majority as well, when in fact I was discussing what motivated the majority and certainly not that the majority made right. And now that that has failed, you are trying to switch yet again by name dropping.



You asked how these abstracts could be discussed, and I gave four perfectly sound definitions for pragmatic discussionary purposes.



You are the one trying to make the case that your transcendent special ideas can't be qualified in modern language as your excuse for nebulous, arbitrary definitions and language. Btw, while sarcasm can occasionally lighten a point, the fact that you have to resort to it a dozen times a post is ridiculous. Like salt, it is only good in moderate doses.



Reinventing more ways to proclaim how much smarter you are is pointless and hollow. If you have something to say, say it. You don't have to be cryptic or relative to discuss an abstract concept.



The point of bringing up your "Obsidian being better than steel" argument is to show that you relentlessly argue from wanting something to be a certain way so as not to offend your senses rather than based on facts or educated opinion. You don't like the fact that Europeans had superior technology (it offends you), so you made an embarassing argument as to why they were outclassed by sharper Obsidian. You don't like the fact that philosophy is not highly respected (it offends you), so you made an embarassing argument about synthesis to try to give it status as to controlling human events.



So I just typed chemistry into wikipedia, and did about ten seconds of research on hydrochloric acid and Sodium Carbonate. They bubble!! Behold, a new chemist has emerged!!! (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

It's not namedropping, it's saying no, Hannah Arendt was a critical counterpoint to what you said. She heavily influenced the view of the holocaust decades later. Her works are frequently cited in the public arena and flavor the popular dialogue about the Nazis today.



Those abstracts are simply different words from the ones you laid out. Individual and Time, Plato's theory of shapes, The Event of Spirit ... really doesn't get at what those themes or books discuss.



This has nothing to do with me proving how smart I am. All this has to do is with you making an appeal to unintelligability (ie, I can't understand it THEREFORE it is pretentious dilettantery).



I haven't said that. I don't know where I would have. However, philosophy like any academic field has its own languages, presuppositions, and internal redefinitions. These are a part of "modern language", and anyone mildly proficient in their use can follow modern philosophical texts. This has nothing to do with proving how smart anyone is, any more than biologists have their own internal parameters has to do with that either.



That had nothing to do with it "offending my senses," I had merely misinterpreted what I had learned. Oh and fyi, self-hating Asians shouldn't lecture others on this kind of thing (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) .

Anyways, no, I'm describing the world as it is. The Enlightenment thinkers brought us closer towards democracy, or some lame lingoistic bullcrap about everone having some internal "freedom soul" that makes them love democracy from birth (which is why it's the main form of government throughout history (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) )



I mixed some chemicals together and made some cheap meth. By your standard, I'm a chemist... no, that's not research, that's looking up a piece of trivia. If you think "research" is "wikitrivia", you didn't spend as much time in school as you should have.

Against you switch, and I'm going to call you on it everytime you try. The point was in influencing human events, not in post-nazi historical books. The Germans, Americans, Russians, Japanese and British publics had the greatest influence. Not random college kids who couldn't hack it in real majors asking "what is the self?" while lighting up a joint.



They are not comprehensive, but they are easily similar enough for functional purpose. Your pretentiousness might feel slighted, but that's not my concern.



Actually, your problem is that you chose to bullshit the wrong person. I understand exactly what the words mean, and that's why I can see through your use of them as a smokescreen to cover up a lack of originality for ego placation.



Now you're trying to simply excuse it as industry jargon. Bullshit. Again, your definitions of philosphers is so absurd that no one could take what you have tried to describe and know whether or not a given person was a philospher, with two exceptions (and only because you named them specifically as worthy due to title) - The Pope and the Dahli Lama.



Oh come off it. You were unhappy that others were unequivocally dismissive of the culture of the Aztecs (particularly in warfare) in comparison to the Europeans. They were right to be dismissive. You didn't like that, and so you reached to try and ascribe to them some sort of equality and even superiority. It made you look ridiculous. Now you're doing the same thing here by trying to glorify philosophy.



This rhetorical juxtopositional trick would work better if people didn't have the ability to scroll back up the previous posts and see how full of crap you are on this. My definition, verbatim, is if you get paid for it you are it. Your definition, verbatim, is a chemist is a chemist if the guy does research on chemicals. I've done "research on chemicals" as has anyone who has ever had a high school or college chemistry lab. Your definition renders the title meaningless, as does your definition of philospher.



I have degrees in criminal justice and business, a minor in economics and I manage multi-million dollar projects. I'm doing ok. No one, save your parents, have paid a dollar for your philosophical musings. It hasn't fed one belly, it hasn't paid one months rent or mortgage, and unless you end up teaching philosophy it probably isn't going to either. At a certain point, you have to grow up and look at the pragmatic value of what you are pursuing. Sitting around marble pillars in white robes pontificating on the nature of nihilism isn't going to happen unless you are bankrolled by another.

(1) Ben Franklin had a huge role in shaping post-American public spirit. So did, well, the dozens, hundreds of other guys directing the construction of the USA

(2) Err, Hannah Arendt was a philosopher. Therefore, her works were philosophy, not history. The influence of her work is in the ethical rules which determine how societies view tyrants, tyranny and political philosophy as a whole.



The terms you listed all either have different scopes, or alternative definitions that would make them entirely inappropriate to discuss modern philosophy.



DS is the one who said that the words were too abstract for him to understand, not necro (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) .



In other words, DS doesn't know how to use my definition therefore it must be incorrect.



Um, I don't particularly care about the ethno-nationalistic cock length competition interpretation of history. Thanks for trying to fit me in your paradigm.



Nice strawman; by assuming the broadest possible definition of any term in an argument, it's very easy to create a reductio ad absurdum. However, it should be clear that research WOULD NOT INCLUDE WIKITRIVIA, as I said in my last response to you. Research is experimentation to test hypothesis. Perhaps that is simulated in highschool, but I doubt any research journals are looking for the work of highschoolers (fyi there's a difference between poking around in a pig fetus under teacher supervision to enhance a lesson laid out in a science curriculum and "partaking in research".)



News flash: Grown man with family makes more money than college undergraduate, read all about it... you have two majors and a minor, and you were making money off of those majors in your senior year of college, I didn't know that was possible (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

As a historical figure who secured the alliance with France and helped design the Constitution. Not as a mere pontificator.



ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR that is absurd. By that argument, if Joe is an engineer, thus the eggs benedict he just cooked are engineering.



There is no concept that can not be adequately translated into plain language to convey the point. This is quite a task for you, filibustering ON filibustering.



I never said they were too abstract for me to understand. I said that you were full of crap.



Doesn't know? You're right, I don't know how to use a stupid defintion that is so open ended and nebulous as to include anything or anyone at all.



Dude! THE HELLLLLLLL YOU DON'T! You suffer the worst case of white man's guilt in the history of the board and possibly the internet. Your entire motivation for going for the whole "Aztec obsidian > European steel" argument (which you persisted on over and over after being proven wrong... kinda like, I dunno, this thread) was all about you crying that the Aztec cock wasn't being given any credit.



Ah I see, you're the research expert now? Exactly at what point does research make one a chemist. One minute of experimentation? And since when is a research journal relevent to making a chemist?



News flash: Man who majors in Philosophy has no job prospects other than teaching philosophy. It has little to do with either of us, and more to get to the very basic part that started this whole discussion.

...and someone who laid down the principles of the American nation, as a philosopher... and do you think he was sent to France without any regard at all to his philosophical ability, do you think he was sent to France on a whim? Or is the more likely possibility that Franklin was respected for his philosophical pursuits and sent to France because his wisdom and intelligence were well renown?

See, here's how social revolution works. Every philosopher lives in his time, and every time has its set of presuppositions, changes, events and needs. Societies are different from time to time. Philosophers-Confucius, Aristotle, Augustine, Marx, Franklin, Arendt, Heidegger, William James, Nagarjuna, Wittgenstein, Hegel, all existed within their social time and were members of the communities which you insist are among the forefront of making social decisions. All these people, within their times, took steps to interpret their times, the social and political problems, and the ontological, ethical, or epistemic assumptions that rooted these times. Their success was based entirely on whether or not a social subgroup was influenced by the philosophical arguments they made. These social judgements are often, but not always, indications of whether or not they were good philosophers, thus the philosophical academe exists to sift through these works and judge them on their own merits (however, naturally, philosophy departments have their own social presuppositions).

If you doubt this, one only has to look at the fact that there are some 200 million Mahayana Buddhists to this day. Without Nagarjuna and other philosophers, their theologies and philosophies would be nonexistent. 200 million people would not be influenced by their word (more if you account for the fact that society, ideology, religion, spirit, are all predicated on dialogue between opposing groups, which would establish that Hindus, Chinese religionists, and Buddhist opponents of Mahayana theology were also influenced by Nagarjuna and others).

According to you, however, social changes exhibit no role for the individual (an irony) but are instead entirely reliant on what society as a whole does. For you, wisdom possesses a wonderfully anarcho-socialist element where society wills, en masse, without the input of individual thinkers (and an insignificant minority, by your definition, accept the role of thinkers, an argument you simply threw out without establishing, despite the fact that all people seem to be seeking guidance from someone, be it a priest, monk, news).



Um, I like how you took one proposition out of the whole thing and ignored the rest-a proposition supported by the overwhelming view of her work. Look, Hannah Arendt's ethical writings have been famous and critical in defining, even redefining fascism, evil, bureaucracy and corruption. I don't know the real purpose behind denying this. It's not like it betters you, DS, if Hannah Arendt, one philosopher, who studied under Martin Heidegger and is among the most famous modern Jewish philosophers, was completely irrelevant in redefining how we see evil.

Hannah Arendt gets 1.3 million google hits, and even more tellingly, her most famous philosophical term, the banality of evil, gets 800,000. Representative Democracy, our form of government, only gets 100,000 more hits than that. Her works are never, as you insist, viewed as empty historical retelling. I have no clue why you'd think that. I can't imagine a professor or someone who knows a lot about Hannah Arendt teaching that in a classroom setting. By giving the public the story of Nazi bureaucrats, she basically raised new questions in the problem of evil when the world was coming-to-terms with the cleanup of Naziism, the trials of Nazi leaders in Israel, the Cold War, and the new totalitarian regimes (Pinochet, the PRI, Zaire, many of the Arab regimes, the Persian government). In that, she was fulfilling the demand of her time by revisioning the ethical nature of evil, how the average person encounters evil problems in their own lives, and how these "average people" can behave in ways which society as a whole had, in the past, attributed to satanic figures as opposed to middle-level bureaucrats.



Those terms ARE plain language to any person used to asking the questions in which those terms are necessary to answer, especially doing it in a modern, Western academic field. Form has a very set definition, as does phenomena. These terms are far different from "Shape" and "Event". It's not fillibustering to say so. For instance, in Plato's argument of form, shape would be inappropriate because, among other reasons, it lacks the categorical nature of "Form". Form could mean the form of man, the form of courage, the form of rhetoric, ect.



I'm not the one complaining about abstract terminology.



Um, it's not a stupid definition. It fits fairly well with what other philosophers have said. Now, again, it's not nebulous if you know the terms. I'm not demeaning you personally for not knowing the terms, it's not a bad thing to be unable to pierce philosophical texts if you're not a philosopher any more than it's not a negative judgment for a biologist to be unable to comprehend astrophysics.



I admitted ages ago I was wrong. That said, first, "White man's guilt", what the fuck are you talking about, am I Spanish? I can't have "guilt" for people who I don't associate myself with. The British clearly had superior technology to the Zulus, I don't deny that. But I deny the technological advantage of people entirely unrelated to me and it becomes, to you, proof of "White Guilt". This is why I doubt your reasoning. To simply create these broad archetypes (white guilt, irresponsible black family, welfare queen, culture war) then lump problem A, individual B or object C into these archetypes as one or two traits are common between them, is not indicative of strong thinking. Defending Aztec technology doesn't mean one hates the White race, or thinks White people are corrupt due to their historical positioning.

Not to mention, you were complaining quite heavily about me presupposing aspects of your personality recently, and I should take these issues less personally. I'm defending philosophy, and you're trying to make this personal. Unless there's some external reason why you have an emotional attatchment to debunking the importance of philosophy, well, that's a steaming load of hypocrisy.\



It's relevant to establishing when research is being done. Research, again, isn't putting a pill in water to see if it dissolves. It's a systematic approach requiring one to understand the properties behind established science, then test the boundaries of these properties by proposing a hypothesis. The definition of "person who markets their skill" would cover meth labs as "Chemists" (side note, not using the European definition of Chemist, which would include pharmacist). Thus, neither of our definitions are perfect, however yours, again, only deflects the issue (A chemist being a person paid to do chemistry requires us to define chemistry) in such a way that it adopts all the flaws of my definition while still exhibiting its own flaws (the primacy of economic relationships over other relationships, ect)



I like how you also claim to know my job prospects, or what I'm going to do with my life. I could become a priest, I could start a business, I could go into publishing, I could become a lawyer ...

Umm, a person who brews cheap methamphetamine in a kitchen lab certainly gets paid (pretty damn well paid in fact) for using chemical reactions to produce a product. Therefore, if "you are what you are paid for", the meth lab dealer is just as much a chemist as anyone running the production lines at a major pharmaceutical plant.

I think that was necro's point ?