Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #8826  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:25 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Well, if it's written somewhere peacegirl assumes someone verified it, she doesn't verify anything herself ever.
If I had to verify every single quote, it would take me forever. I would never get the book finished. Yes, I have to have a certain amount of trust in the people who have done the research [hopefully]. They could be wrong, but for the most part I haven't seen this. The things you are interested in checking out make no difference as far as the validity of the book is concerned, and that's my only focus.
Reply With Quote
  #8827  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:26 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Well, if it's written somewhere peacegirl assumes someone verified it, she doesn't verify anything herself ever.
Remember the Internet Checkers?

:mechwalker:
:lmao: :laugh: :giggle:
Reply With Quote
  #8828  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:29 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Well, if it's written somewhere peacegirl assumes someone verified it, she doesn't verify anything herself ever.
If I had to verify every single quote, it would take me forever. I would never get the book finished. Yes, I have to have a certain amount of trust in the people who have done the research [hopefully]. They could be wrong, but for the most part I haven't seen this. The things you are interested in checking out make no difference as far as the validity of the book is concerned, and that's my only focus.
LOL, anyone can put up a website, we've been over this. You "trust" anonymous people who put shit on the Internet that you like and agree with.

Those of us who post actual scientific evidence and authoritative citations? We can't be trusted at all.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (04-26-2012)
  #8829  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:32 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Well, if it's written somewhere peacegirl assumes someone verified it, she doesn't verify anything herself ever.
If I had to verify every single quote, it would take me forever. I would never get the book finished. Yes, I have to have a certain amount of trust in the people who have done the research [hopefully]. They could be wrong, but for the most part I haven't seen this. The things you are interested in checking out make no difference as far as the validity of the book is concerned, and that's my only focus.
You mean like the bit about checking out why, if real-time seeing is true, we use delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to other worlds? That makes no difference to the validity of the book? :lol:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (04-25-2012), Stephen Maturin (04-26-2012)
  #8830  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:33 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He gives plenty of reasons. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Provide one. Show me ONE reason he gave supporting any one of the presuppositions I listed.
All bluster was it?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-25-2012)
  #8831  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:34 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Because that is what he wants to discuss LadyShea. He wants to discuss the idea that light bounces off of objects and travels to the eye, which takes time. That would mean that light has to travel to Earth in order not to violate the laws of physics, but that is not true when we're talking about efferent vision. There is a total disconnect here.
Ahem...

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How do the photons get there?
They travel...
Also...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]
Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]
Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]
Back to your weaselling ways already?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-25-2012)
  #8832  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:35 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Moreover, his quote:

Quote:
All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is
violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident.
...Simply is not true.

It's true sometimes this happens, but not all the time, as he asserts. More, the converse is also the case: Just because something is ridiculed and/or violently opposed, doesn't make it true. Sure, people laughed at Copernicus, at first. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Which category do you think Lessans is in, peacegirl? :chin:
I wanted to add to this post. It is true that just because something is ridiculed, doesn't make it true. But the premise here is that the something that is being ridiculed is true, and the general response when the truth being spoken is the opposite of what most people believe or have been taught. I think that's what Shopenhauer meant. I agree that using the word all is extreme.
Reply With Quote
  #8833  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:35 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Because that is what he wants to discuss LadyShea. He wants to discuss the idea that light bounces off of objects and travels to the eye, which takes time. That would mean that light has to travel to Earth in order not to violate the laws of physics, but that is not true when we're talking about efferent vision. There is a total disconnect here.
Ahem...

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How do the photons get there?
They travel...
Also...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]
Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]
Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]
Back to your weaselling ways already?
You have not apologized to me. Do you think I'm going to forget that easily? :sadcheer:
Reply With Quote
  #8834  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:41 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You have not apologized to me. Do you think I'm going to forget that easily? :sadcheer:
Unlike you, I have nothing to apologize for. You are mentally ill and should be seeking help.

See how you're back to lying and weaselling already? Tell us again about how you're not here to restart discussion and are about to leave.

You are only here to assert your faith and feed your delusion.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (04-26-2012)
  #8835  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:42 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Moreover, his quote:

Quote:
All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is
violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident.
...Simply is not true.

It's true sometimes this happens, but not all the time, as he asserts. More, the converse is also the case: Just because something is ridiculed and/or violently opposed, doesn't make it true. Sure, people laughed at Copernicus, at first. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Which category do you think Lessans is in, peacegirl? :chin:
I wanted to add to this post. It is true that just because something is ridiculed, doesn't make it true. But the premise here is that the something that is being ridiculed is true, and the general response when the truth being spoken is the opposite of what most people believe or have been taught. I think that's what Shopenhauer meant. I agree that using the word all is extreme.
He didn't fucking even say it. Your book is a lie even before the text proper begins. And you also misspelled Schopenhauer's name. :wave:
Reply With Quote
  #8836  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:47 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

It is and has been widely attributed to Schopenhauer for many years (without citation however, you'll notice), I don't think we can hold that against her.

Her refusal to even consider the idea of verification and citation when editing a non-fiction book for publication and sale while claiming it is a scientific and scholarly work ? Yeah, that can be ridiculed with impunity.
Reply With Quote
  #8837  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:20 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There will be scientists who will give this knowledge the time of day, and will do empirical testing if that is what's called for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I grant it is possible, but I predict it will not happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You can predict anything you want, but that doesn't make your predictions correct.
It doesn't make your prediction's correct either, however since my prediction is firmly based on reality and yours on faith, I am pretty sure mine is more accurate.
That's the problem. Your think your prediction is based on reality and mine on faith. I am pretty sure mine is more accurate. Unfortunately, the actual truth as to who is right will not be determined in this forum.
On what do you base your prediction that "scientists will give this knowledge the time of day"?
Because this knowledge is valid and can be verified. Therefore it is my belief that it's only a matter of time before scientists take a serious look at this discovery.
Hey everybody, peacegirl thinks Lessans "knowledge" is valid. Is there anybody here at FF that hasn't known this for at least six months?

peacegirl, have you returned to tell us something you have told us hundreds of times already? Is this the occupation of a healthy mind?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-25-2012), Spacemonkey (04-25-2012)
  #8838  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:35 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Because that is what he wants to discuss LadyShea. He wants to discuss the idea that light bounces off of objects and travels to the eye, which takes time. That would mean that light has to travel to Earth in order not to violate the laws of physics, but that is not true when we're talking about efferent vision. There is a total disconnect here.
Ahem...

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How do the photons get there?
They travel...
Also...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]
Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]
Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]
Back to your weaselling ways already?
You have not apologized to me. Do you think I'm going to forget that easily? :sadcheer:
peacegirl, I don't think anybody is bothered if you are upset at not getting an apology. If you were a child they might even find it kinda cute in a petulant little girl sort of way, but coming from a senior citizen it's just stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #8839  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:49 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Well, if it's written somewhere peacegirl assumes someone verified it, she doesn't verify anything herself ever.
If I had to verify every single quote, it would take me forever. I would never get the book finished. Yes, I have to have a certain amount of trust in the people who have done the research [hopefully].

So Peacegirl doesn't verify any of her quotes, she just takes them on faith. Just like she has made no attempt to verify Lessans claims, she just accepts it on faith, and in spite of considerable verified emperical evidence to the contrary. Seems like a bit of a double standard that testable emperical evidence is rejected, but a lot of unsurported conjecture is accepted at face falue. Someone is a few bricks shy of a load. Their elevator doesn't go all the way up. Their light bulb is a much lower wattage than everyone elses. Their soda has lost it's fizz.
Reply With Quote
  #8840  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:54 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

BTW, if anyone see's fit to bump one of my posts please feel free to do so, I would not want Peacegirl to miss out on the wit and wisdom of 'thedoc'.
Reply With Quote
  #8841  
Old 04-25-2012, 11:11 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Well, if it's written somewhere peacegirl assumes someone verified it, she doesn't verify anything herself ever.
If I had to verify every single quote, it would take me forever. I would never get the book finished. Yes, I have to have a certain amount of trust in the people who have done the research [hopefully]. They could be wrong, but for the most part I haven't seen this. The things you are interested in checking out make no difference as far as the validity of the book is concerned, and that's my only focus.
LOL, anyone can put up a website, we've been over this. You "trust" anonymous people who put shit on the Internet that you like and agree with.

Those of us who post actual scientific evidence and authoritative citations? We can't be trusted at all.
When you're talking scientific evidence, then you must make sure that the studies are cited correctly. I don't know what to say. I cannot go off on tangents like this that actually have nothing to do with this man's discovery.
Reply With Quote
  #8842  
Old 04-25-2012, 11:15 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
It is and has been widely attributed to Schopenhauer for many years (without citation however, you'll notice), I don't think we can hold that against her.

Her refusal to even consider the idea of verification and citation when editing a non-fiction book for publication and sale while claiming it is a scientific and scholarly work ? Yeah, that can be ridiculed with impunity.
There was no reason to think this quote was not accurate, and I certainly wanted to give credit to the person whose quotation it was. I could have left his name out, but that wouldn't have been right. Notice how much energy this discussion is taking which is now distracting everyone from the main topic.
Reply With Quote
  #8843  
Old 04-25-2012, 11:16 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? WHY ARE YOU POSTING?

You've made it blatantly clear that you're not interested in rationally discussing the validity of Lessans' claims with anyone, and you've repeatedly stated that you know you're wasting your time with every post you make here.

So what on Earth are you doing? Do you even know? Why do you keep coming back to a forum where everyone thinks you're certifiable, to do nothing but make faith claims and refuse to engage in substantive discussion?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-25-2012)
  #8844  
Old 04-25-2012, 11:19 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Notice how much energy this discussion is taking which is now distracting everyone from the main topic.
YOU said you weren't returning to discuss the main topic. YOU said that. If you don't believe me, or if you've forgotten already, just look back through your posting history.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-25-2012)
  #8845  
Old 04-25-2012, 11:19 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Moreover, his quote:

Quote:
All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is
violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident.
...Simply is not true.

It's true sometimes this happens, but not all the time, as he asserts. More, the converse is also the case: Just because something is ridiculed and/or violently opposed, doesn't make it true. Sure, people laughed at Copernicus, at first. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Which category do you think Lessans is in, peacegirl? :chin:
I wanted to add to this post. It is true that just because something is ridiculed, doesn't make it true. But the premise here is that the something that is being ridiculed is true, and the general response when the truth being spoken is the opposite of what most people believe or have been taught. I think that's what Shopenhauer meant. I agree that using the word all is extreme.
He didn't fucking even say it. Your book is a lie even before the text proper begins. And you also misspelled Schopenhauer's name. :wave:
My book is not a lie David. Can't you separate unimportant details from the main theme of the book, or is that too difficult?
Reply With Quote
  #8846  
Old 04-25-2012, 11:24 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Notice how much energy this discussion is taking which is now distracting everyone from the main topic.
YOU said you weren't returning to discuss the main topic. YOU said that. If you don't believe me, or if you've forgotten already, just look back through your posting history.
I'm actually not going to return to the main topic because there's too much confrontation. It would be hard for anyone (not just me) to share new knowledge in this kind of atmosphere. I just wanted to show how many times people have gotten distracted from the main purpose of this thread. The fact that we never got to Chapter Two shows me what little progress we actually made.
Reply With Quote
  #8847  
Old 04-25-2012, 11:26 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
My book is not a lie David. Can't you separate unimportant details from the main theme of the book, or is that too difficult?
Unimportant details like the level of redundancy of his introduction?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-25-2012)
  #8848  
Old 04-25-2012, 11:28 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm not going to return to the main topic because of the cold responses. It would be hard for anyone (not just me) to share new knowledge in this kind of atmosphere. The fact that we never got to Chapter Two shows me what little progress we made.
So why on Earth are you criticizing others for not returning to a topic that you refuse to discuss? Do you have any idea how crazy that is?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-25-2012)
  #8849  
Old 04-25-2012, 11:36 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? WHY ARE YOU POSTING?

You've made it blatantly clear that you're not interested in rationally discussing the validity of Lessans' claims with anyone, and you've repeatedly stated that you know you're wasting your time with every post you make here.

So what on Earth are you doing? Do you even know? Why do you keep coming back to a forum where everyone thinks you're certifiable, to do nothing but make faith claims and refuse to engage in substantive discussion?
I'm answering people's questions Spacemonkey, but not the ones that are going to cause an uproar. I don't want to go back to photons traveling because this has nothing to do with efferent vision, no matter how you word it. Secondly, you have not given me a chance to even discuss chapter two. You think Lessans' observations are mere assertions, but you're wrong. You keep asking me where he supports his presuppositions. And I keep saying he made astute observations. Yes, certain things have to be true such as the way conscience works under the conditions he describes, but first you have to understand his reasoning, which you haven't done. If people want more empirical proof, that's fine, but to dismiss this knowledge as if it's nothing is a darn shame. I don't want to start this discussion again because I'm sick and tired of the lies and the name calling. It's sad that every other post are people condemning Lessans when they don't have a solid grasp of the material. How can they? They didn't read the book, but they are the loudest detractors.
Reply With Quote
  #8850  
Old 04-25-2012, 11:40 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Moreover, his quote:

Quote:
All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is
violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident.
...Simply is not true.

It's true sometimes this happens, but not all the time, as he asserts. More, the converse is also the case: Just because something is ridiculed and/or violently opposed, doesn't make it true. Sure, people laughed at Copernicus, at first. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Which category do you think Lessans is in, peacegirl? :chin:
I wanted to add to this post. It is true that just because something is ridiculed, doesn't make it true. But the premise here is that the something that is being ridiculed is true, and the general response when the truth being spoken is the opposite of what most people believe or have been taught. I think that's what Shopenhauer meant. I agree that using the word all is extreme.
He didn't fucking even say it. Your book is a lie even before the text proper begins. And you also misspelled Schopenhauer's name. :wave:
My book is not a lie David. Can't you separate unimportant details from the main theme of the book, or is that too difficult?
:lol:

We've already been over the "main theme" of the book hundreds of times, peacegirl. The books claim's have all been shown to be substantively wrong

What are you doing here, indeed?
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.56832 seconds with 14 queries