(February 6, 2012 at 12:16 am)Abracadabra Wrote: No need to thank me. I tend to view philosophers much like Richard Feynman.
"We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?" - Richard Feynman
No offense intended, but every time I meet someone who claims to be a philosopher I never hear anything but this kind of gibberish coming from them. Like Feynman points out, they end up getting lost in arguments over semantics to such an absurd degree that it truly becomes paralysis of thought.
Unfortunately, that is the state of most of philosophy. A lot of pseudo-scientific, semi-religious intellectual sounding crap that means little. Sort of the bullshit you were spouting about the "spiritual essence of reality" and how, somehow, "quantum mechanics gives you permission to believe that".
Fortunately. I'm not a philosopher. I don't get lost in semantics, I clarify them . If the meaning or usage of a word seems suspect, I look it up, thereby avoiding any thought paralysis. If the words in an argument are used wrongly, I point it out and the whole argument automatically falls apart.
(February 6, 2012 at 12:16 am)Abracadabra Wrote: I have no interest in going there. I read over the rest of your post, and as far as I can see that's precisely where you're headed.
So thanks, but no thanks. I'm not interested in getting into endless fruitless arguments over semantics. It's just not my cup of tea.
I didn't think it was. You like to use words without regard for their meaning or their referents. Similarly, you like to use concepts and arguments without regard or knowledge of their underlying premises. Clearly, you'd be uncomfortable if the words and concepts are discussed with their actual meaning.
