Quote:

---

Groups may mingle over varying matters.

---

Sounds kinky.

Quote:

---

Kid_Orgo said:
merely wondering what you consider religious bullshit

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
with religious bullshit?  There is already another forum for that.  And no, religion is not philosophy.

---

Quote:

---

MushroomTrip said:

Quote:

---

Kid_Orgo said:
merely wondering what you consider religious bullshit

---

How about everything religious?

---

Exactly what I was thinking.

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
with religious bullshit?  There is already another forum for that.  And no, religion is not philosophy.

---

Posters in the other forum talk about religion in a positive light, whereas posters here generally do not.

Quote:

---

Poid said:
Posters in the other forum talk about religion in a positive light, whereas posters here generally do not.

---

just...stop. You're trying too hard to be a poid

Quote:

---

the bizzle said:

Quote:

---

Poid said:
Posters in the other forum talk about religion in a positive light, whereas posters here generally do not.

---

just...stop. You're trying too hard to be a poid

---

What the fuck are you talking about? Is what I said untrue in any way, shape, or form?

Are you alright there?

Quote:

---

What the fuck are you talking about? Is what I said untrue in any way, shape, or form?

Are you alright there?

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
Why is the philosophy, sociology and psychology forum being over-run with religious bullshit?

Well, I won't disagree that religion is bullshit. Be that as it may, it can definitely fall under the Sociology rubric. I argued against adding that to the forum name during the last renaming round, but I was overruled.

And no, religion is not philosophy.

I'm not so sure about that given that there is an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to religion.

---

Quote:

---

soldatheero said:
Most of the threads about religion are not by people advocating religion. Most posts about religion seem to be done by orgone, diploid, poid and others that are criticizing religon.

---

Quote:

---

soldatheero said:
Most of the threads about religion are not by people advocating religion. Most posts about religion seem to be done by orgone, diploid, poid and others that are criticizing religon.

---

I have the feeling that you had a point and forgot to make it...

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
Why is the philosophy, sociology and psychology forum being over-run with religious bullshit?

Well, I won't disagree that religion is bullshit. Be that as it may, it can definitely fall under the Sociology rubric. I argued against adding that to the forum name during the last renaming round, but I was overruled.

And no, religion is not philosophy.

I'm not so sure about that given that there is an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to religion.

---

Quote:

---

the bizzle said:

Quote:

---

What the fuck are you talking about? Is what I said untrue in any way, shape, or form?

Are you alright there?

---

I'm just saying, your poid is showing

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
with religious bullshit?  There is already another forum for that.  And no, religion is not philosophy.

---

Quote:

---

teknix said:

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
Why is the philosophy, sociology and psychology forum being over-run with religious bullshit?

Well, I won't disagree that religion is bullshit. Be that as it may, it can definitely fall under the Sociology rubric. I argued against adding that to the forum name during the last renaming round, but I was overruled.

And no, religion is not philosophy.

I'm not so sure about that given that there is an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to religion.

---

Then just out of curiosity, why do you remain moderating something that you despise?

---

Quote:

---

desert father said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
with religious bullshit?  There is already another forum for that.  And no, religion is not philosophy.

---

i disagree.

each person has their own philosophy regarding their chosen religious path.  so each subjective religious experience is a philosophy in and of itself in regards to the believer.

just because it isn't your philosophy doesn't mean it isn't a philosophical concept.

---

Quote:

---

desert father said:
no, and that's the point man, you can't just generalize people into groups, it's dangerous.

---

Quote:

---

desert father said:
religion is dogma if that's the way you choose to interpret it...which it is obvious that you have.

i'm just saying that to each individual there is an individual understanding and interpretation of religion and religious topics.

do you think a priest approaches his spirituality the same way that a sunday church goer does?

do you think that a sunday church goer approaches his spirituality in the same way that i do?

no, and that's the point man, you can't just generalize people into groups, it's dangerous.

---

Quote:

---

Poid said:

Quote:

---

desert father said:
no, and that's the point man, you can't just generalize people into groups, it's dangerous.

---

---

Quote:

---

Philosophy is a free ranging discussion without boundaries.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
with religious bullshit?  There is already another forum for that.  And no, religion is not philosophy.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
A PhD has nothing to do with philosophy.  You can have a PhD in Chemistry.  That doesn't make Chemistry Philosophy.

---

Quote:

---

iThink said:
What makes you think Plotinus was the greatest philosopher?

---

Greatest perhaps after Plato. Plotinus elaborated the thoughts of Plato and arranged them in a systematic hierarchy of Being. When, after the first week of a course I took in mysticism my last semester in college, everyone but me had dropped out. The professor, Dr. David Leahy, offered me a tutorial in The Enneads of Plotinus, topped off by a comparison with the 6th century Christian NeoPlatonist Dionysus the Areopagite AKA Pseudo-Dionysus, AKA St. Denis. I was still in my regular acid consumption phase, and I must have imprinted this rather difficult work on Plotinus, so that, when I began in a theological seminary the following fall, I was better prepared to describe the hierarchy than my professor Thomas C. Oden (another influence on me). The first thing I ever heard of Plotinus was a 4 second song on The Fugs album: It Crawled Into My Hand - Honest.
The song is called, 'Tuli Visited by the Ghost of Plotinus,' - a moment of weird sound with the words: "I'm in this for the sex, myself..." A total goof on the celibate, body-despising mystic. So, the personal choice is fed by these different memories which include my valuation by a respected professor, my small mastery over another respected professor, an adolescent impression that only later became understood and appreciated, PLUS my appreciation of a kindred soul from 270 CE. Capiche?

Quote:

---

MarkostheGnostic said:

Quote:

---

iThink said:
What makes you think Plotinus was the greatest philosopher?

---

Greatest perhaps after Plato. Plotinus elaborated the thoughts of Plato and arranged them in a systematic hierarchy of Being. When, after the first week of a course I took in mysticism my last semester in college, everyone but me had dropped out. The professor, Dr. David Leahy, offered me a tutorial in The Enneads of Plotinus, topped off by a comparison with the 6th century Christian NeoPlatonist Dionysus the Areopagite AKA Pseudo-Dionysus, AKA St. Denis. I was still in my regular acid consumption phase, and I must have imprinted this rather difficult work on Plotinus, so that, when I began in a theological seminary the following fall, I was better prepared to describe the hierarchy than my professor Thomas C. Oden (another influence on me). The first thing I ever heard of Plotinus was a 4 second song on The Fugs album: It Crawled Into My Hand - Honest.
The song is called, 'Tuli Visited by the Ghost of Plotinus,' - a moment of weird sound with the words: "I'm in this for the sex, myself..." A total goof on the celibate, body-despising mystic. So, the personal choice is fed by these different memories which include my valuation by a respected professor, my small mastery over another respected professor, an adolescent impression that only later became understood and appreciated, PLUS my appreciation of a kindred soul from 270 CE. Capiche?

---

Quote:

---

iThink said:

Quote:

---

MarkostheGnostic said:

Quote:

---

iThink said:
What makes you think Plotinus was the greatest philosopher?

---

Greatest perhaps after Plato. Plotinus elaborated the thoughts of Plato and arranged them in a systematic hierarchy of Being. When, after the first week of a course I took in mysticism my last semester in college, everyone but me had dropped out. The professor, Dr. David Leahy, offered me a tutorial in The Enneads of Plotinus, topped off by a comparison with the 6th century Christian NeoPlatonist Dionysus the Areopagite AKA Pseudo-Dionysus, AKA St. Denis. I was still in my regular acid consumption phase, and I must have imprinted this rather difficult work on Plotinus, so that, when I began in a theological seminary the following fall, I was better prepared to describe the hierarchy than my professor Thomas C. Oden (another influence on me). The first thing I ever heard of Plotinus was a 4 second song on The Fugs album: It Crawled Into My Hand - Honest.
The song is called, 'Tuli Visited by the Ghost of Plotinus,' - a moment of weird sound with the words: "I'm in this for the sex, myself..." A total goof on the celibate, body-despising mystic. So, the personal choice is fed by these different memories which include my valuation by a respected professor, my small mastery over another respected professor, an adolescent impression that only later became understood and appreciated, PLUS my appreciation of a kindred soul from 270 CE. Capiche?

---

You strike as possibly being one of the most over-educated (not a bad thing) acid heads to have ever existed.

---

  Dependent arisings. Each moment of life is an agglutination of past events plus a moment of novelty. Hey, Francis Crick took acid and envisioned the double-helix. I am nobody.

Quote:

---

millzy said:
markos, i'm interested in learning more about plotinus, but i feel a scholar's explanation of him might do me better than trying to read him. any authors you could recommend that explain the nitty gritty of neo-platonism in plain language?

---

Quote:

---

Samurai Drifter said:

Quote:

---

millzy said:
markos, i'm interested in learning more about plotinus, but i feel a scholar's explanation of him might do me better than trying to read him. any authors you could recommend that explain the nitty gritty of neo-platonism in plain language?

---

There's a great chapter on Plotinus in Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy," which is pretty easy reading.

---

Quote:

---

guruu said:
just take it on man, you'll adapt. read slow if you got to.

---

Quote:

---

MarkostheGnostic said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
A PhD has nothing to do with philosophy.  You can have a PhD in Chemistry.  That doesn't make Chemistry Philosophy.

---

Why do YOU think the terminal degree is called a Ph.D.? Ever think about it? Leucippus and his pupil Democritus are listed among philosophers of antiquity who spoke about 'atoms,' and such philosophers were called atomists. The pre-Ssocratic  philosophers were known for their emphasis on metaphysical substances (arche): Thales' water, Anaximander's apeiron, Anaximenes' air, the fire of Heraclitus, the earth of Empedocles, etc. All modern disciplines had their beginnings, East and West, among philosophers. Atomist philosophers coalesced in Aristotle, and for many centuries his four elements of Earth, Air, Fire nd Water dominated 'natural philosophy' which was the forerunner of science. Aristotle had profound influence upon the Arab alchemists who used his metaphysics (they, or perhaps, we, still do) in their philosophical system which divided into physical chemistry at some point and spiritual realization, of the vulgar gold and the Philosophical Gold (or Philosophers' Stone), respectively. So I beg to differ with you.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:

Quote:

---

MarkostheGnostic said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
A PhD has nothing to do with philosophy.  You can have a PhD in Chemistry.  That doesn't make Chemistry Philosophy.

---

Why do YOU think the terminal degree is called a Ph.D.? Ever think about it? Leucippus and his pupil Democritus are listed among philosophers of antiquity who spoke about 'atoms,' and such philosophers were called atomists. The pre-Ssocratic  philosophers were known for their emphasis on metaphysical substances (arche): Thales' water, Anaximander's apeiron, Anaximenes' air, the fire of Heraclitus, the earth of Empedocles, etc. All modern disciplines had their beginnings, East and West, among philosophers. Atomist philosophers coalesced in Aristotle, and for many centuries his four elements of Earth, Air, Fire nd Water dominated 'natural philosophy' which was the forerunner of science. Aristotle had profound influence upon the Arab alchemists who used his metaphysics (they, or perhaps, we, still do) in their philosophical system which divided into physical chemistry at some point and spiritual realization, of the vulgar gold and the Philosophical Gold (or Philosophers' Stone), respectively. So I beg to differ with you.

---

Methinkest thou doth not comprehend language evolution.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
They weren't sciences, either.

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
Markos, you've been warned about the childish name calling several times. If you choose to debate by insult, then go do it in OTD.

Take a time out.

---

Quote:

---

millzy said:
theology can be considered a science.

---

Quote:

---

i think hard sciences and social sciences (which i consider theology, in some cases, to be) deal in distinctly different areas and serve completely different purposes, but still, when approached in a certain way, theology can be considered a science.

---

Quote:

---

millzy said:

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
They weren't sciences, either.

---

not true. with the advent of the university in medieval europe and the rise of scholasticism, theology was considered a science. in fact thomas aquinas called theology "the highest science". don't get me wrong though, i think hard sciences and social sciences (which i consider theology, in some cases, to be) deal in distinctly different areas and serve completely different purposes, but still, when approached in a certain way, theology can be considered a science.

---

Quote:

---

guruu said:
it's known as soft science

---

Quote:

---

guruu said:
yes, he taught us that there is in fact a SUBconscious aspect to our reality that we aren't always aware of, and that this informs many of our actions.  It was actually a revolution in human thought.

---

Quote:

---

he taught us that there is in fact a SUBconscious aspect to our reality that we aren't always aware of

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
Not one single thing he proposed is even remotely valid.

---

Quote:

---

Freud is best known for his theories of the unconscious mind and the mechanism of repression, and for creating the clinical method of psychoanalysis for investigating the mind and treating psychopathology through dialogue between a patient (or "analysand") and a psychoanalyst.

---

You really think his theories on the unconscious mind, the mechanism of repression, and the clinical method of psychoanalysis (which is still used today) is not remotely valid?

Quote:

---

poid said:

Quote:

---

Freud is best known for his theories of the unconscious mind and the mechanism of repression, and for creating the clinical method of psychoanalysis for investigating the mind and treating psychopathology through dialogue between a patient (or "analysand") and a psychoanalyst.

---

You really think the unconscious mind, the mechanism of repression, and the clinical method of psychoanalysis (which is still used today) is not remotely valid?

---

I just don't get how posts like these are not breaking the rules

no, you're not criticizing his argument. Your graemlin is a reference to this person's overall character


you did the same thing with guruu

Quote:

---

You believe this may be true, but you have absolutely no evidence to back it up.

---

So i guess if you type a sentence that refers to their argument, you are free to use whatever graemlin you want to imply the insult that would be against the rules if it were typed as a word


I see this often, and not just with poid. I'm not trying to be a rule nazi but I think it's unfair that some can freely attack other people's overall character with slightly clever use of graemlins, yet others get banned for it because they didn't use a graemlin

shit, i once got banned from the pub for referring to MYSELF as a

Quote:

---

poid said:
I'm sure you'd like to think so.

---

You are sure, but you have no evidence to back it up




Does favoritism happen with this forum and its moderating? sometimes it seems like it. Or maybe you just have to know the proper way to work around the rules and you can get away with all the personal attacks you want.

it also naturally provokes people to retaliate with insults of their own, especially newcomers, and not understanding this graemlin loophole they use words and get a warning/ban

if it hurt my feelings so bad I wanted to cry about it i would have been bitching about this a lot for quite a while now.
It just seems pretty hypocritical and takes away from the integrity of this forum, especially when its the more frequent posters who do this most frequently (some weeks more than others).




carry on

Quote:

---

the bizzle said:

Quote:

---

poid said:

Quote:

---

Freud is best known for his theories of the unconscious mind and the mechanism of repression, and for creating the clinical method of psychoanalysis for investigating the mind and treating psychopathology through dialogue between a patient (or "analysand") and a psychoanalyst.

---

You really think the unconscious mind, the mechanism of repression, and the clinical method of psychoanalysis (which is still used today) is not remotely valid?

---

I just don't get how posts like these are not breaking the rules

---