Upload
Login or register

iluvharrypotter

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:7/28/2011
Last Login:10/01/2016
Stats
Content Ranking:#4984
Comment Ranking:#7874
Highest Content Rank:#2015
Highest Comment Rank:#835
Content Thumbs: 1951 total,  2192 ,  241
Comment Thumbs: 5353 total,  6812 ,  1459
Content Level Progress: 7% (7/100)
Level 119 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 120 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 61% (61/100)
Level 249 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 250 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:4
Content Views:132667
Times Content Favorited:144 times
Total Comments Made:885
FJ Points:7690
Favorite Tags: Boss nigger (2)

First2[ 11 ]
First2[ 11 ]

latest user's comments

#32 - Picture  [+] (1 reply) 09/24/2016 on Kim Kardashian Is A Hero +7
User avatar
#65 - lotengo (09/24/2016) [-]
Calm down Chunck, have some bacongrease
#115 - What you just said still technically holds that something is c…  [+] (1 reply) 08/27/2016 on reading 0
User avatar
#117 - cormy (08/27/2016) [-]
No, unintelligible does not hold that something is complex.
Babies are unintelligible. Babies are basic.
No, there wouldn't be minimal discussion because people are fucking stupid. Case and point, modern art. Same shit. People looking for answers in things that never made sense.
Things get preserved because they interest in intrigue people, not because they actually have value.
Plato being ahead of his time does not make him complex. Ambiguity is not complex. A writing style and debate style does not make you complex, it means you have a personality. You having views that change over time and through experiences does not make you complex, it just means you are capable of changing.
Trying to pin down someone based on their entire life is dumb, a person is not the same person 20 years, you can't coalesce the two people.
People are stupid, philosophers especially I would emphasize. Again, they're not language professionals or psychologists. The fact that anyone needs to try and figure out what these guys are saying at all is enough for me to say they didn't have their heads straight. I mean, these are books. It's not like they couldn't have been revised before publication.

Now, you say in your second paragraph that it's harder for those who haven't studied him, I'd assume that's because of the terms he uses in reference to well-established or perhaps terms of his own creation, but that doesn't make him anymore complex. It means you're lacking a definition, and that shouldn't be hard to interpret. You said specifically hard to interpret, which is something else altogether.
What I'm saying is the concepts and ideas he put forth were nothing extraordinary, as with most philosophy, and that if he could not write in a concise and clear manner, then had hadn't quite ironed out his own thoughts properly and so trying to figure out what he hadn't yet figured out is silly!
People can THINK they understand someone without actually doing so. Especially when it comes to scholars who are practically DESPERATE for the answers they seek. They will insert their own ideas to complete that of another and say that they understand.
Again, when I say he's basic. I mean his views, his philosophy. The actual content. I don't mean his writing talent and ability to convey message. It's not about the works, it's about the ideas and that's what I have a problem with when it comes to philosophy. There isn't any groundbreaking ideas that stem from it.
I'm using absolutes when I shouldn't, but FOR THE MOST PART that is the way I have felt towards philosophy; generally speaking, because I can't recall every moment in particular.
Why does it matter what his intent is?
Why should anyone care to adopt the philosophy?
If it's hard to identify whether it is rational, there's an issue. Philosophy should always be based on logic. If it's not, you're back to baby speak.
People should not study things that aren't clear, something being clear does not make it basic. High tier science and math is quite clear, though often hard to grasp when encountering the ideas for the first time. That's how complex Philosophy should be. Clear, but maybe difficult to accept and fully grasp all in 1 sitting.

I have read Plato, among others, I just haven't studied it extensively. I've never taken a full course in philosophy let's say, but on my own time I've picked up books here and there. What I have read, I am clear on. As I said, I'm no expert. But I can make judgements on what I've read and understood, and I have understood all that I read.

I'm... Tempted by your last line but that would send me on a reading journey I don't want to address right now and would open up a whole new argument XD
#113 - Plato can be one of the most ambiguous and challenging philoso…  [+] (3 replies) 08/27/2016 on reading 0
User avatar
#114 - cormy (08/27/2016) [-]
That doesn't make it anymore complex.
When someone is incapable of explaining themselves, you can't say shit about what they're saying because they can't even say shit about what they're saying.
People having trouble deciphering someone's words means the ideas they are laying out aren't concrete and they likely aren't even sure of how exactly they feel about something.
They have an idea, but they don't know.
Seriously, it's a big problem and NO ONE should study things that aren't clear WHILE USING THOSE THINGS TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS. ESPECIALLY because it will NEVER be confirmed!

I'll say I'm no expert, I don't study these things, I know nothing about them... But, everytime someone has convinced me to look at them I've seen nothing but obvious psychological conclusions and this is what angers me most about the field of philosophy. For some reason, people seem to think that Psychology factors into philosophy. I get bull shit questions like "What makes us human?" as if there isn't any fucking scientific definitions for this shit.
Then there's shit about right and wrong that I always have an answer for aswell, it's never complicated.

I may take a look at Parmenides at some point but I've yet to be impressed or convinced by anything philosophy-related and if it is at all valid, it often boils down to "There is no actual answer to this, you can think whatever you want."
User avatar
#115 - iluvharrypotter (08/27/2016) [-]
What you just said still technically holds that something is complex, even if it's unintelligible or not worth the effort to decipher for it's results. Which is opposed to what you discussed earlier, with Plato being "basic". If he's basic, wouldn't there be minimal discussion of what he meant or why his writings got preserved over all the other pre-Socratic philosophers before him?
I hold that Plato is complex in the way that it's rigorous to examine his broad-ranging views while factoring in the historical context of his time and the predecessors and common ideas he tackles, coupled with the ambiguity and his choices of arguments and interlocutors in his dialogues, the fact that he's absent in all dialogues and only briefly mentioned (in third-person) twice and never explicitly puts himself as a character in the dialogues to discuss his views; along with seemingly changing views from his suspected early work to his later work or during his alleged travels across Italy and the Mediterranean (specifically in Elea and Syracuse) that makes it hard to confidently judge and examine his philosophy and arguments. Is his philosophy and arguments excellent or well-funded? I can't answer that, because I haven't read enough of other philosophers and thoroughly examine my own thoughts to sufficiently reach a conclusion with his. Plato's most known student (Aristotle) basically spent half his life participating in his Academy and supporting his philosophy, and the other half criticizing and deconstructing it. His philosophy may as very well been dog-shit, but as far as it being easy to study and read doesn't seem to be the case, even with coupled with the other reputable major philosophers after him.

As for your second argument, I'm stumped at trying to understand what you've said. You criticized Plato before in your other comment, claiming that he's "basic" as, you implied, was a bad thing; but later state that if some writer / speaker is difficult to interpret for an individual to fully understand, then that writer / speaker is flawed for how he presented himself in a way that isn't unanimously comprehensible to an audience. I'm wasn't trying to say that Plato is inherently complex for all people to study and comprehend, but that he can be hard for the average layman or anyone who hasn't study philosophy or read him enough to fully understand without getting some instruction. There's been and still are plenty of Platonist scholars and academics (notably Aristotle) who confidentially stated that they understand Plato out there and likely aren't lying or far from the truth. If Plato is truly basic, as you say, wouldn't that be a good thing seeing how he's clear and comprehensible. If so, why is it inadequate for someone in already in their early 20's to him read instead of more possible 'complex' works? The problem for most of those who experience difficulty reading him isn't that he's hard to read because the words he has written are hard to draw any conclusions from, but that it's hard to confidently identify his intent and whether or not it seems rational to the reader, or if his philosophy is worthy to adopt as their own.
By saying that people shouldn't study anything not clear, aren't you saying people should only study basic things?

Also, you stated that you're no expert on philosophical matters (which you stated it's a matter you aren't 'clear' on) but are confident enough to judge Plato's philosophy without (I presume) reading it first to judge his beliefs and reasoning, or with looking into other philosophies, to deductively make conclusions of it; doesn't this go against what you just said of what people SHOULDN'T do?

Finally (to answer your last argument): Plato's most known component of his philosophy is his 'Forms', which argue for there being an objective metaphysical truth, beyond what we can perceive with our senses, existing for all existing concepts and ideas, and thus argues against epistemological nihilism.
User avatar
#117 - cormy (08/27/2016) [-]
No, unintelligible does not hold that something is complex.
Babies are unintelligible. Babies are basic.
No, there wouldn't be minimal discussion because people are fucking stupid. Case and point, modern art. Same shit. People looking for answers in things that never made sense.
Things get preserved because they interest in intrigue people, not because they actually have value.
Plato being ahead of his time does not make him complex. Ambiguity is not complex. A writing style and debate style does not make you complex, it means you have a personality. You having views that change over time and through experiences does not make you complex, it just means you are capable of changing.
Trying to pin down someone based on their entire life is dumb, a person is not the same person 20 years, you can't coalesce the two people.
People are stupid, philosophers especially I would emphasize. Again, they're not language professionals or psychologists. The fact that anyone needs to try and figure out what these guys are saying at all is enough for me to say they didn't have their heads straight. I mean, these are books. It's not like they couldn't have been revised before publication.

Now, you say in your second paragraph that it's harder for those who haven't studied him, I'd assume that's because of the terms he uses in reference to well-established or perhaps terms of his own creation, but that doesn't make him anymore complex. It means you're lacking a definition, and that shouldn't be hard to interpret. You said specifically hard to interpret, which is something else altogether.
What I'm saying is the concepts and ideas he put forth were nothing extraordinary, as with most philosophy, and that if he could not write in a concise and clear manner, then had hadn't quite ironed out his own thoughts properly and so trying to figure out what he hadn't yet figured out is silly!
People can THINK they understand someone without actually doing so. Especially when it comes to scholars who are practically DESPERATE for the answers they seek. They will insert their own ideas to complete that of another and say that they understand.
Again, when I say he's basic. I mean his views, his philosophy. The actual content. I don't mean his writing talent and ability to convey message. It's not about the works, it's about the ideas and that's what I have a problem with when it comes to philosophy. There isn't any groundbreaking ideas that stem from it.
I'm using absolutes when I shouldn't, but FOR THE MOST PART that is the way I have felt towards philosophy; generally speaking, because I can't recall every moment in particular.
Why does it matter what his intent is?
Why should anyone care to adopt the philosophy?
If it's hard to identify whether it is rational, there's an issue. Philosophy should always be based on logic. If it's not, you're back to baby speak.
People should not study things that aren't clear, something being clear does not make it basic. High tier science and math is quite clear, though often hard to grasp when encountering the ideas for the first time. That's how complex Philosophy should be. Clear, but maybe difficult to accept and fully grasp all in 1 sitting.

I have read Plato, among others, I just haven't studied it extensively. I've never taken a full course in philosophy let's say, but on my own time I've picked up books here and there. What I have read, I am clear on. As I said, I'm no expert. But I can make judgements on what I've read and understood, and I have understood all that I read.

I'm... Tempted by your last line but that would send me on a reading journey I don't want to address right now and would open up a whole new argument XD
#111 - But how would you know if you used your senses correctly? If y…  [+] (1 reply) 08/27/2016 on reading 0
User avatar
#121 - shinyarmor (08/27/2016) [-]
by reference and comparison. at this point that question of yours is what others call intelligence.
#89 - How can inquire if they're an intellectual or not by reading p…  [+] (4 replies) 08/26/2016 on reading +1
User avatar
#98 - shinyarmor (08/26/2016) [-]
use your senses and get lucky. empirical evidence
User avatar
#111 - iluvharrypotter (08/27/2016) [-]
But how would you know if you used your senses correctly? If you had correct / true sense, wouldn't further inquiring be redundant? While if you don't, wouldn't it be impossible to know?
User avatar
#121 - shinyarmor (08/27/2016) [-]
by reference and comparison. at this point that question of yours is what others call intelligence.
#90 - xgolgothax (08/26/2016) [-]
**xgolgothax used "*roll picture*"**
**xgolgothax rolled image**What if you're looking for the inquiry?