|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: needlesneedles Date: Aug 1, 2007 21:12
Do you have either a favorite Philosophy or Philosopher?
If so whom or what is it and why?
Mine is Thomas Paine and his 1776 Common Sense.
Plus his 1792 The Rights of Man, as it was critique of Edmund Burkes
Reflection on the French Revolution.
"Logic, the act of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the
limitations and incapacities of human understanding"
*Origin unknown*
|
| |
|
| | 16 Comments |
|
|
Author: kevirwinkevirwin Date: Aug 1, 2007 21:55
On Aug 2, 12:12 am, "needles" bresnan.net> wrote:> Do you have either a favorite Philosophy or Philosopher?
> If so whom or what is it and why?
>
> Mine is Thomas Paine and his 1776 Common Sense.
> Plus his 1792 The Rights of Man, as it was critique of Edmund Burkes
> Reflection on the French Revolution.
>
> "Logic, the act of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the
> limitations and incapacities of human understanding"
> *Origin unknown*
David Hume...
I liked his dissertations on the question of evil...
K e v
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: SeanSean Date: Aug 1, 2007 22:08
Me ..... I'm the only one I know I understand exactly what I mean and
understand. ;-)
"needles" bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:cNudnVf3kZFbxCzbnZ2dnUVZ_v2unZ2d@bresnan.com...> Do you have either a favorite Philosophy or Philosopher?
> If so whom or what is it and why?
>
> Mine is Thomas Paine and his 1776 Common Sense.
> Plus his 1792 The Rights of Man, as it was critique of Edmund Burkes
> Reflection on the French Revolution.
>
> "Logic, the act of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the
> limitations and incapacities of human understanding"
> *Origin unknown*
>
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Aug 1, 2007 22:17
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:12:47 -0600, "needles" bresnan.net> wrote:
>Do you have either a favorite Philosophy or Philosopher?
>If so whom or what is it and why?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurophilosophy
-----------------
Neurophilosophy
Neurophilosophy is the interdisciplinary study of neuroscience and philosophy. Work in this field is often separated into two
distinct methods. The first method attempts to solve problems in philosophy of mind with empirical information from the
neurosciences. The second method attempts to clarify neuroscientific results using the conceptual rigor and methods of philosophy of
science.
The pair of philosophers who have brought wide attention to this field (in both of these forms) are Patricia and Paul Churchland.
------------------------
I like them because they have made some effort to go beyond
the false folk lore theories that supported earlier philosophers.
The earlier philosopher's works are of value, the Churchland's works
allow 'why the value' to be considered.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: kevirwinkevirwin Date: Aug 1, 2007 22:18
On Aug 2, 1:08 am, "Sean" blah.com> wrote:
Me ..... I'm the only one I know I understand exactly what I mean and
understand. ;-)
Sean,
Ya' know, that reminds me of a thought I once had (Yes, I do get them
from time to time).
When an author writes his thoughts/ideas/beliefs, **they're his**...
When I read his thoughts/ideas/beliefs, they're **mine**...
The value of **anything** I read or hear is how it enriches my
understanding of this reality I've be thrust into. The only reason I'd
need to be concerned about the author's intent was if I was taking a
test on it. I haven't given up on learning, but I have given up on
taking any tests...
K e v
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: kenny gkenny g Date: Aug 1, 2007 22:43
On Aug 2, 12:12 am, "needles" bresnan.net> wrote:> Do you have either a favorite Philosophy or Philosopher?
> If so whom or what is it and why?
>
> Mine is Thomas Paine and his 1776 Common Sense.
> Plus his 1792 The Rights of Man, as it was critique of Edmund Burkes
> Reflection on the French Revolution.
>
> "Logic, the act of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the
> limitations and incapacities of human understanding"
> *Origin unknown*
one time, not long ago, i asked that same question and got no
response. grrrr! anyways, i like michiavelli in how he belives that
sometimes we have to leave, or go against, our personal values for a
greater cause. so noble that is.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: jusholmjusholm Date: Aug 2, 2007 00:07
"needles" bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:cNudnVf3kZFbxCzbnZ2dnUVZ_v2unZ2d@bresnan.com...> Do you have either a favorite Philosophy or Philosopher?
> If so whom or what is it and why?
>
> Mine is Thomas Paine and his 1776 Common Sense.
> Plus his 1792 The Rights of Man, as it was critique of Edmund Burkes
> Reflection on the French Revolution.
>
> "Logic, the act of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the
> limitations and incapacities of human understanding"
> *Origin unknown*
>
Paine is great, Reid is brilliant but I'd have to go for Descartes.
(Socrates/Plato started it all off of course and St. Augustine is amazing)
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Aug 2, 2007 04:13
On Aug 2, 1:12 pm, "needles" bresnan.net> wrote:
> "Logic, the act of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the
> limitations and incapacities of human understanding"
> *Origin unknown*
Who the fuck but a Kantian or mystic (same thing) would own up to that
anyway?
As you obviously consider it has merit, then why dont you explain
(what chazzzz couldn't) what is limiting about your ability and or
capacity to know with 100%% certainity whether or not you took a crap
today?
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: GatherNoMossGatherNoMoss Date: Aug 2, 2007 12:37
On Aug 2, 7:13 am, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:> On Aug 2, 1:12 pm, "needles" bresnan.net> wrote:
>>> "Logic, the act of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the
>> limitations and incapacities of human understanding"
>> *Origin unknown*
>
> Who the fuck but a Kantian or mystic (same thing) would own up to that
> anyway?
>
> As you obviously consider it has merit, then why dont you explain
> (what chazzzz couldn't) what is limiting about your ability and or
> capacity to know with 100%% certainity whether or not you took a crap
> today?
Knowing you took a crap today IS within the limits of understanding.
I think it refers, in part, to limitation set by the physical senses.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
