• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

There are no material objects

dlorde said:
Ah, the eternal question... I hesitate to admit I don't know, for fear that admitting that lack of knowledge will be taken as evidence of a deeper wisdom.
Click to expand...

Or, the FSM forbid, that we are capable of demonstrating rational thought. After all, one only has a propensity toward ridicule. This stems from never having perused a philosophy book in one's life.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
You're darn tootin'! Yet how can a constructivist view of deconstructionism be maintained in an epiphenomenalistic universe? This is a fertile field of study, but paradoxically it is a sterile form of fertiltity, allowing non-cognitive, quasi-realistic reasoning.
Click to expand...

Gibberish!
 
dafydd said:
The reason? Making word salads is easy.
Click to expand...
Okay, sure. Making word salads is easy. So, what's the specific reason for your gibberish then? Are you trying to prove by example that making word salads is easy?

If so, who are you proving it to, and why? Did someone make a claim that it's difficult to make word salads?
Being accused of not being able to think figures heavily too.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this either. Could you please connect how it relates to the above posts? In particular, what is this figuring heavily into?
 
"Look ma, I don't get it, so I'm sure its just the product of a random word generator"....

So, just because there is a bunch of you, clapping your hands all together, then you are right? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
"Look ma, I don't get it, so I'm sure its just the product of a random word generator"....

So, just because there is a bunch of you, clapping your hands all together, then you are right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Are you trying to make an argument here?
 
yy2bggggs said:
Okay, sure. Making word salads is easy. So, what's the specific reason for your gibberish then? Are you trying to prove by example that making word salads is easy?

If so, who are you proving it to, and why? Did someone make a claim that it's difficult to make word salads?

I don't understand this either. Could you please connect how it relates to the above posts? In particular, what is this figuring heavily into?
Click to expand...

I pointed out that Dancing David posted a sesquipedal word salad and I was accused of not being able to think. It that good enough for you or do I have to couch it in polysyllabic words? To get back on topic, are we all agreed that there are material objects?
 
dafydd said:
I pointed out that Dancing David posted a sesquipedal word salad and I was accused of not being able to think.
Click to expand...
Then I'm missing something. I thought this started when in post #343 you accused Bhodi Dharma Zen of a word salad in post #342.

Could you use post numbers, and explain to me what point you're trying to make? For starters, could you please phrase very clearly what it is people are doing wrong along the way?
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Are you trying to make an argument here?
Click to expand...

The arguments have been presented, followed by a cascade of, jokes from other members. If you are interested, please comment on the arguments, I would be glad to have a nice discussion.
 
dafydd said:
It doesn't look like it. I am not clapping my hands. Sounds like an overdose of Zen woo.
Click to expand...

Whats exactly the "woo" in Zen?

It is just than you and a bunch of other members, appear to have zero understanding about what is a philosophical discussion, calling it a "word salad".
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Whats exactly the "woo" in Zen?
It is just than you and a bunch of other members, appear to have zero understanding about what is a philosophical discussion, calling it a "word salad".
Click to expand...

I think dafydd meant woo of the Zen variety, not the woo of Zen.
 
dafydd said:
I pointed out that Dancing David posted a sesquipedal word salad and I was accused of not being able to think. It that good enough for you or do I have to couch it in polysyllabic words? To get back on topic, are we all agreed that there are material objects?
Click to expand...

No I suggested that you should consider what BDZ wrote, I did not post a word salad at this juncture.

Now what BDZ says is true, ontology is not possible to determine.

My POV is that it is moot, and therefore we can go with appearances, regardless of the phenomenology. So while it may be godthought, butterfly dreams, dancing energy or BIVs, the end result is the same.
 
Dancing David said:
No I suggested that you should consider what BDZ wrote, I did not post a word salad at this juncture.

Now what BDZ says is true, ontology is not possible to determine.

My POV is that it is moot, and therefore we can go with appearances, regardless of the phenomenology. So while it may be godthought, butterfly dreams, dancing energy or BIVs, the end result is the same.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, what matters is the regularity of "whatever it is beyond our concepts". Instrumentalism, in this sense, is an interesting approach. We shall also remember that in the everyday life this topics are irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom