A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[seebs]

peacegirl:
If Lessans were right, and you understood him, you would not be hurt.

Either he's wrong or you don't understand it. Either way, you simply aren't in a position to try to reveal it to people yet. Either make it available and hope someone figures it out, or work on it yourself. Either way, stop wasting everyone else's time with something that you yourself clearly haven't got yet.

The fact is, I have never heard of any religion or philosophy that hasn't produced people better at getting away from the blame mentality than you. I've rarely, in fact, met any who were worse at it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Maybe for the very young. But if world peace does happen it will have nothing to do whatsoever with Lessans, unless perhaps the bad guys read his book and laugh themselves to death.

Nope, your're just too cynical to even imagine the possibility of peace, therefore if a person claims that this type of world is not only possible, but inevitable, your conclusion is that he must not have his head screwed on tight. Happily, that isn't the case.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all true, but there is a presupposition that in order to find love, there is always a risk involved of getting hurt. Sure it's better to have loved and taken the chance of getting hurt than never to have loved at all, but right there is the presupposition that in order to find that love there is always this possibility of having one's heart broken.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yes, the possibility always exists, but that was not the presupposition that Lessans identified. He claimed that the presupposition was "that there must always be a contest wherein someone loses and gets hurt". That there always exists the possibility that someone may get hurt is not same thing as there always being a contest wherein someone loses and gets hurt. So, he misunderstood the underlying presuppostion and as a consequence of the misunderstanding he misapplied it.

Lessans used this phrase correctly. Implicit in the saying "it is better to have loved than never to have loved at all" is the presupposition that there's a contest or competition (not an actual contest; a figurative one) where there are losers and winners in this game of love. In other words, in the dating scene there is often someone who gets hurt when the love and commitment that is given to another is not returned in equal measure.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

While this particular error on Lessans part may not be terribly germane to his larger argument it is relevant insofar as it casts doubt on the accuracy and astuteness of his observations in general. We are asked to believe that Lessans had a deep and profound understanding of human nature based, at least in part, on the vast amount of reading he did in philosophy and in history. Further, we are asked to believe that he took away from that reading important insights that had eluded previous generations of scholars. We are asked to believe these things about Lessans despite his inability to correctly identify the presuppositions in a passage of literature that he both misquotes and misapplies in support of his argument.

But you're incorrect Angakuk. You're making an assumption about this man without a justification. I'm really disappointed by the lack of patience on everyone's part to take the time to hear me out instead of jumping all over the place to find imaginary flaws.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please hear me. If life was so extremely satisfying that we were filled with bliss, could we desire to find a better, more satisfying life somewhere else? The only reason people kill themselves is because something in this world is dissatisfying and to live under the present circumstances is worse, even if it's to sacrifice one's life so that someone else may live. Let me put it another way. If there was heaven on earth, would we need to look to heaven, or some other ethereal place, by killing ourselves, in the hope of finding that happiness that we can't find here?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your response presupposes facts that are not in evidence. You presuppose that those who commit suicide expect to find a "more satisfying life somewhere else".

Not necessarily Angakuk. Someone may commit suicide because there is some dissatisfaction with the here and now, and they are moving away from this dissatisfaction. It doesn't necessarily mean that they think they will find a more satisfying life somewhere else. It could be one of the motivating factors if this person is miserable. It all depends on the motive of the individual.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You offer no evidence to support this claim.

Because that was not the claim.

"If life was so extremely satisfying that we were filled with bliss, could we desire to find a better, more satisfying life somewhere else?" Presupposition: Those who commit suicide do so in expectation of finding a more satisfying life somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You presuppose that those who commit suicide do so not only because they are dissatisfied with some aspect of life, but because that dissastisfaction is so great that they no longer desire to live. Once again, no evidence is offered.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The evidence offered is that the dissatisfaction of living this life (for whatever reason) is greater than the satisfaction of not living this life. It could be that to save a life is more important than to be in this life, even though being here is not so terrible according to this person, but it still is a movement away from a dissatisfying position, which is to have this person die rather than me.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Whether or not the choice to commit suicide constitutes a movement away from a dissatisfying position is irrelevant to the point that I was making with respect to your unsupported presupposition. That is, you have presupposed that the "only reason people kill themselves is because something in this world is dissatisfying and to live under the present circumstances is worse [than dying]". You fail to provide any evidence for the claim that this the only reason people kill themselves.

It is very obvious that if someone desires to kill themselves, even if it's to find something better, or even if it's to save someone else, this indicates that where they are now (the very spot in time and space that they stand on right at this moment) is not satisfactory (for whatever reason), therefore it follows that to move off of the spot is a movement away from an unsatisfactory position. Killing oneself is an extreme example, but it is further proof that even to take one's life is not moving in the direction of dissatisfaction; it is actually a movement in the direction of "greater" satisfaction than what the present position offers. I'm sorry if you can't clearly see this relation, but it's as clear as day to me. Hopefully you will in time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And why I am not surprised that neither Lessans nor peacegirl knew or bothered to look up the context of that Tennyson quote.

Grief for a dead friend does not imply, at all, that "there must always be a contest wherein someone loses and gets hurt".

What the hell are you talking about LadyShea when I was referring to a contest where someone loses in love, not friendship.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lady Shea has already asked this question, but I will go ahead and ask it anyway. Who was it that was referring to a contest in the passage in question? You quoted Lessans saying this but now you appear to taking credit for it. Whose words are we dealing with?

Lessans was referring to a contest wherein people become losers in the game of love. Obviously, he didn't mean "all" become losers because the word implies that there will also be winners. That's why he used the word "contest". In the world we live, boys and girls are getting hurt left and right, and there's no getting around it. Lessans was using this quote in reference to dating, not the existential grief we all feel when we lose someone. He was trying to show that this hurt that so many experience will be rectified in the new world so that everyone will be a winner when it comes to finding a mate.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, your're just too cynical to even imagine the possibility of peace, therefore if a person claims that this type of world is not only possible, but inevitable, your conclusion is that he must not have his head screwed on tight. Happily, that isn't the case.

Another example of peavegirls cognitive dysfunction. I had imagined a scenario of world peace within the lifetimes of some that are alive today and I even let Lessans play a crucial role in bringing it about. And if she keeps this up she could very well move Lessans from being merely the object of pity and amusement to one of drop dead hilarity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why am I not surprised by your canned response? You must live with the artificial intelligence robots that you research so discretely.

Nope, your're just too cynical to even imagine the possibility of peace, therefore if a person claims that this type of world is not only possible, but inevitable, your conclusion is that he must not have his head screwed on tight. Happily, that isn't the case.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

Another example of peavegirls cognitive dysfunction. I had imagined a scenario of world peace within the lifetimes of some that are alive today and I even let Lessans play a crucial role in bringing it about. And if she keeps this up she could very well move Lessans from being merely the object of pity and amusement to one of drop dead hilarity.

The reason you act this way is that you can't entertain the idea that world peace is possible. Lessans said that he had nothing to do with this knowledge except for being at the end of a line of thought that came before him. He didn't take pride in what he was able to accomplish. He was not an arrogant man, as I've said a thousand times. Lessans has already been the object of pity and hilarity, so there's nothing to lose, but he will have the last laugh.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans has already been the object of pity and hilarity; it can't get any worse; therefore, it can only get better.

Oh but it can and will become worse as long as you continue to peddle his book and promote it on the internet. It will get better when you stop trying and let the book lie quietly in the dustbin of history and Lessans will finally be able to 'rest in peace', your father could already have found his peace if you would let him alone.

[seebs]

I suggest you continue disproving him and making him look like an idiot as much as you can. Also, add more of your mistakes to his writing and pretend they were his; that will help.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, your're just too cynical to even imagine the possibility of peace, therefore if a person claims that this type of world is not only possible, but inevitable, your conclusion is that he must not have his head screwed on tight.

I would say 'cynical' is the wrong Honorific, 'realist' is closer to the truth.

It has also become painfully obvious to many following this thread that Peacegirls 'screws' are very loose if not absent altogether.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, it shows your dysfunction more than mine. You can't even entertain the idea of something falling outside of the limits of your worldview. It's funny but sad at the same time. Lessans said that he had nothing to do with this knowledge except for being at the end of a line of thought that came before him. He didn't take pride in what he was able to accomplish. He was not an arrogant man, as I've said a thousand times. Lessans has already been the object of pity and hilarity; it can't get any worse; therefore, it can only get better. I still maintain that the reason you are so up in arms is because you don't believe peace is possible. Thank the Lord, it is possible, and I mean Lord in a very generic way, so don't get bent out of shape once again. :

Actually I did entertain it. And I found it entertaining. That appears to be the consensus. If you and Lessans were going for comedy of some kind then you did it.

As far as the possibility of peace, I am very confident that one day there will be peace on earth, whether it includes mankind or not. But it will have nothing to do with Lessans and his dead end knowledge.

BTW, I found this extra bit tacked onto to your reply:
[Why am I not surprised by your canned response? You must live with the artificial intelligence robots that you research so discretely. ]

I think you need to look up the word discretely.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Actually I did entertain it. And I found it entertaining. That appears to be the consensus. If you and Lessans were going for comedy of some kind then you did it.

As far as the possibility of peace, I am very confident that one day there will be peace on earth, whether it includes mankind or not. But it will have nothing to do with Lessans and his dead end knowledge.

I am referring specifically to human beings, not robots, when I speak of peace on earth.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am referring specifically to human beings, not robots, when I speak of peace on earth.

peavegirl, if you are after peace then the best thing you could possible do is stop posting on the internet or change the subject. Your efforts of the last ten years have not made things peaceful for you or anyone else.

Get help peavegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peavegirl, if you are after peace then the best thing you could possible do is stop posting on the internet or change the subject. Your efforts of the last ten years have not made things peaceful for you or anyone else.

Get help peavegirl.

You can't stop posting for the life of you, but you're telling me to stop? You're an enigma!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't stop posting for the life of you, but you're telling me to stop? You're an enigma!

peavegirl, you may not have noticed, but I've been posting here for awhile. In any case I am not the one who wants to bring peace to the world by bringing everyone I come into contact with to the point where they either call me a liar or crazy. That would be an enigma, if it wasn't so obvious that you are out of your mind.

You really should get help peavegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peavegirl, you may not have noticed, but I've been posting here for awhile. In any case I am not the one who wants to bring peace to the world by bringing everyone I come into contact with to the point where they either call me a liar or crazy. That would be an enigma, if it wasn't so obvious that you are out of your mind.

You really should get help peavegirl.

Your thoughts about me is all in your head NA. I think you've talked to too many robots.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's all in your head NA that I'm a liar or crazy. So who is crazy now? I think you've talked to too many robots.

peavegirl, you are an accidental comic. Yes, it is in my head that you are crazy. However it is in just about everyone else's head as well. All except for your head. I hope someday you will realize that you are crazy and get help.

And unless you are the robot in question, I have not talked with any robots.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your thoughts about me is all in your head NA. So who is crazy now? I think you've talked to too many robots.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

peavegirl, you are an accidental comic. Yes, it is in my head that you are crazy. However it is in just about everyone else's head as well. All except for your head. I hope someday you will realize that you are crazy and get help.

And unless you are the robot in question, I have not talked with any robots.

Well you must be a robot wannabe because you sound like one. And for your information just because the majority thinks one way does not mean the minority is wrong. Keep that in mind.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well you must be a robot wannabe because you sound like one. And for your information just because the majority thinks one way does not mean the minority is wrong. Keep that in mind.

I agree, the majority is not right just because it is the majority. However the minority is most likely wrong if everything they claim should happen does not happen, not to mention if the minority is incoherent and inconsistent within their very own claims. And it certainly doesn't help the minority if their presentation is full of the stupidest dialog on the face of the earth, along with countless assumptions based on silly misunderstandings of the definitions of the very terms they use and claim are crucial. And especially if the only thing the minority can do is say that one day there will be evidence of their claims and they keep on saying this over and over and over again while not making any effort at all to produce evidence. But the kicker is that the minority is completely unwilling to acknowledge anything at all that conflicts with their claims. Not only unwilling but will openly let you know that their knowledge is the only knowledge that is reliable. That is usually a sure fire indication that the particular minority in question is actually wrong.

Oh and if the only spokesperson for the minority is obviously out of her mind that is also a good indication that the minority is wrong.

get help peavegirl.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well you must be a robot wannabe because you sound like one. And for your information just because the majority thinks one way does not mean the minority is wrong. Keep that in mind.

Yeah! Keep that in mind mister know-it-all-busybody-smarty-pants.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well you must be a robot wannabe because you sound like one. And for your information just because the majority thinks one way does not mean the minority is wrong. Keep that in mind.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

I agree, the majority is not right just because it is the majority. However the minority is most likely wrong if everything they claim should happen does not happen, not to mention if the minority is incoherent and inconsistent within their very own claims.

There is no inconsistency in these claims. And aren't you a little premature to say that the claim should happen but does not happen, when this law has not even been recognized yet?

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

And it certainly doesn't help the minority if their presentation is full of the stupidest dialog on the face of the earth, along with countless assumptions based on silly misunderstandings of the definitions of the very terms they use and claim are crucial.

What's so stupid about a dialogue that is meant to clarify a very difficult concept? That was the whole purpose of writing it in dialogue. And what countless assumptions -- based on silly misunderstandings of the definitions of the very terms they use and claim are crucial -- are being made? All Lessans was doing was defining terms that actually correspond with reality.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

And especially if the only thing the minority can do is say that one day there will be evidence of their claims and they keep on saying this over and over and over again while not making any effort at all to produce evidence.

I am trying in every possible way to explain why man's will is not free. Man cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction if a better alternative is available to him based on his particular circumstances. I have been trying desperately to show that this is not a tautology or a modal fallacy, but rather a very important observation. Even if we choose to die rather than live because of circumstances that compel us to choose this option, it is still a movement away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position. It is not a movement from a dissatisfying position to a more dissatisfying position.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

But the kicker is that the minority is completely unwilling to acknowledge anything at all that conflicts with their claims. Not only unwilling but will openly let you know that their knowledge is the only knowledge that is reliable. That is usually a sure fire indication that the particular minority in question is actually wrong.

You are assuming that Lessans is wrong because he was positive he was right. If you were in front of some big scientist, and he was just as positive, you wouldn't make these comments. By the same token, if someone you respected told you that Lessans was right, your whole attitude would change. It's only because he's an unknown, and because these are extraordinary claims, that you immediately jump to the conclusion that this is a joke of some kind.

[naturalist.atheist]

peavegirl, I've told big scientists to their faces they were wrong. And they either acknowledged they were wrong or they did more research and published papers on their research showing I was wrong. And even after that they sometimes were still wrong.

Being right or wrong is not a matter of posting on some forum on the internet or even publishing a book or mp3. If Lessans was right about anything, by now it would have been big news. It ain't. Not only was Lessans wrong, he was both comically wrong and tragically wrong. Comically because his stuff is so stupid it is funny, and tragically wrong because he indoctrinated his daughter with his stupidity which drove her crazy and ruined her life. That is very sad. A Dad should never do such a thing to his daughter. It is inexcusable.

Get help peavegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yeah! Keep that in mind mister know-it-all-busybody-smarty-pants.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peavegirl, I've told big scientists to their faces they were wrong. And they either acknowledged they were wrong or they did more research and published papers on their research showing I was wrong. And even after that they sometimes were still wrong.

Being right or wrong is not a matter of posting on some forum on the internet or even publishing a book or mp3. If Lessans was right about anything, by now it would have been big news. It ain't. Not only was Lessans wrong, he was both comically wrong and tragically wrong. Comically because his stuff is so stupid it is funny, and tragically wrong because he indoctrinated his daughter with his stupidity which drove her crazy and ruined her life. That is very sad. A Dad should never do such a thing to his daughter. It is inexcusable.

Get help peavegirl.

You're all washed up NA. You keep using the fact that if this knowledge was true, it would have been big news already, or if this knowledge was true, people on the internet would have recognized it already. You're assumptions are all wrong. And then your last argument that the only reason that I'm into this is because I'm his daughter is ridiculous. You're not giving me any credit for having a mind of my own. I am not indoctrinated. You are so off the mark that I really don't know what to say except that your entire analysis of who I am is flat out wrong. As I said before, my father was a loving kind man. He never told me I was responsible for his work. My sister loved my father too, but she went on to work on her own business. My father would have never scolded her for this, or made her feel guilty. That is the antithesis of what this book stands for. I am carrying the ball for my father, OF MY OWN FREE WILL (OR DESIRE) BECAUSE I WANT TO DO IT. In other words, I am moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, therefore I have no free choice.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am carrying the ball for my father, OF MY OWN FREE WILL (OR DESIRE) BECAUSE I WANT TO DO IT. In other words, I am moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, therefore I have no free choice.

Nice save, but you know (I think) that you could have just edited the post.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're all washed up NA.

You're not giving me any credit for having a mind of my own. I am not indoctrinated. You are so off the mark that I really don't know what to say except that your entire analysis of who I am is flat out wrong.

By now NA should be excruciatingly squeeky clean to an absurdely unacceptable level. Oh well!

At least Peacegirl can recognize small bits of reality, even though she is completely blind to almost everything else.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yeah! Keep that in mind mister know-it-all-busybody-smarty-pants.

WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? Shouldn't you be writing your sermon, or do you use a canned version out of a book?