Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Linguistic Philosophy
    #24036072 -

Auto-Summary
This forum post summarizes a discussion on Wittgenstein's views on language and perception. The author emphasizes that Wittgenstein challenges the common understanding of language as being based on ostension (pointing to objects). The post explains how Wittgenstein's philosophical investigation deconstructs this idea, particularly focusing on Augustine's description of how language learning occurs through bodily movements and expressions. The author argues that Wittgenstein questions whether language fundamentally affects perception or if we inadvertently follow certain paths of meaning in language use. He suggests that philosophy should dissolve problems, even if it's challenging to navigate a modern world heavily reliant on conceptual language. The post concludes by highlighting the importance of distinguishing language games from perceivings and experiences, advocating for a therapeutic approach to questioning conceptualism in our understanding of the world.

Quote:
"Do not mistake the finger pointed at the moon"
- Chinese Proverb


It seems to me that we commonly understand our language (both its origins and practices) to be based on the way we perceive, and by extention of that, how we know things.

Wittgenstein called this ostension (for reference), basically the way point to things in language. The first part of his Philosophical Investigation, is in deconstructing the idea that language in its origins, and practical use, is in ostension.

He quotes Augustine as demonstrating this picture of language:

Quote:
When they (my elders) named some object, and accordingly moved towards something, I saw this and I grasped that the thing was called by the sound they uttered when they meant to point it out. Their intention was shewn by their bodily movements, as it were the natural language of all peoples: the expression of the face, the play of the eyes, the movement of other parts of the body, and the tone of voice which expresses our state of mind in seeking, having, rejecting, or avoiding something. Thus, as I heard words repeatedly used in their proper places in various sentences, I gradually learnt to understand what objects they signified; and after I had trained my mouth to form these signs, I used them to express my own desires."



Wittgenstein comments:

Quote:
These words, it seems to me, give us a particular picture of the essence of human language. It is this: the individual words in language name objects — sentences are combinations of such names.

In this picture of language we find the roots of the following idea: Every word has a meaning. This meaning is correlated with the word. It is the object for which the word stands.

Augustine does not speak of there being any difference betweenkinds of word. If you describe the learning of language in this way you are, I believe, thinking primarily of nouns like "table", "chair", "bread", and of people's names, and only secondarily of the names of certain actions and properties; and of the remaining kinds of word as something that will take care of itself.

Now think of the following use of language: I send someone shopping. I give him a slip marked "five red apples". He takes the slip to the shopkeeper, who opens the drawer marked "apples"; then he looks up the word "red" in a table and finds a colour sample opposite it; then he says the series of cardinal numbers — I assume that he knows them by heart — up to the word "five" and for each number he takes an apple of the same colour as the sample out of the drawer. It is in this and similar ways that one operates with words.

"But how does he know where and how he is to look up the word 'red' and what he is to do with the word 'five'?" - Well, I assume that he acts as I have described. Explanations come to an end somewhere.
"But what is the meaning of the word 'five'?" — No such thing was in question here, only how the word "five" is used.




I do not think Wittgenstein is being ironic when he assumes we think "explanations come to an end at some point" and that language is in "use", or on the other hand that he is just embracing the idea. As he continues, it becomes clear that his intent is to question this common picture of language.

He goes on to describe his method as philosophical therapy. So I guess; no room for pretense.  If you do not have these problems, he doesn't assume that you have to follow an extensive construction and deconstruction of conceptuality, for instance, of ostension.

He is not proving a point, but emphasizing and loosening up presupposed paths of meaning we do not essentially, but somewhat accidentally follow through language, as the pathologies of over-conceptualization. Maybe one must encompass the problem, emphasize and practically become its symptoms and let them come to the surface and work out to some extent what the problem is. Of course it is better to not have the problem or a prejudiced mindset in the first place, but that is moot. From very early on Wittgenstein had taken an approach of dissolving philosophical problems however it works.

I think this can be important and maybe suggestive. Take ostension for example. To me it is clear that we rely on language, almost as much as and as effectively as perception in relation to the world. A picture of language can be that it is something like an instance of perception (pointing relation to a given object). Just as much, we can become conditioned to think that perception, is something that should be like language, and it should inform a concept, or a linguistic object, in a certain paradigm. That is the real philosophical question... How much does language affect perception? How much is perception conditioned for you?

It is said by many, in preference, that philosophy is analytic; in an analysis of conceptual language. We look for conceptual analyses that implicitly inform our world, and we tend to try to look to the world as vessel for a concept or notion. The concept can be inflated in this. But to put it practically, how else can we navigate a modern scientific world?

Assume that science is said to be empirical, in a classical sense, and that would indicate it is based on perceptions and experiences. That is at any rate the main standard of the scientific practice, what we effectively assume, and the logic we evaluate the world according to. We interrogate perceptions and experiences of the world, whether they are encouched in language or not. We begin with the senses. We effectively assume that the paradigms we address in science are in sense experience, while their bases are actually or at least on some basis, in their theories, in perception.

We may find that modern science is to a great extent not just about confirming or falsifying an isolated perception, but understanding and dealing with projected conceptual paradigms through this same game too. For instance, when we question perceptions and experiences on an empirical basis, it seems to me we look to consider conceptual constructs, more than the case of literally falsifying hallucinations or delusions, the sorts of contents classically seated in perception. We look to theoretical language, and the framework in science in or in relation to our empirical basis.

To me it is difficult to understand the extent we/I should here look to language, and conceptual paradigms, as carrying our sense experiences, so far as we live in such a world. In what cases are the concepts and paradigms conceptually invented, and contrived, rather than discovered in relation to the world? Do we take this even as a question? Maybe not necessarily. Maybe an explanation of the world comes to a certain end, and we dwell in the use of concepts and language to a great degree here too?

I do not think we have much choice but to be able to learn to grapple with anxiety analysis (weird Freudian slip in my spell-check), and become literate in technical and conceptual language, however this world justifies its conceptual paradigms. My thought is it is just possible to distinguish our perceivings, and experiences from conceptuality. I do not think it is possible to understand the situation of a modern world, so I am not going to pick up any ethical question too much anyway. I think in a more personal way, it is just important to to stay in touch with the world, and so I end up in this "therapeutic" space, as Wittgenstein put it - questioning my conceptualism, and to some extent gesturing to some philosophy.

I believe it is possible to distinguish the "games" we play in language, from necessarily being perceivings, and in a similar way we can distinguish our experiences and perceivings from being conditioned by theoretical/linguistic concepts in this pattern. A philosophical approach of analysis, ἀνάλυσις, could indeed be "an unloosening".

Edited by Kurt (01/31/17 02:59 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24036251 -

This is just thoughts on Wittgenstein that I jotted down quick.

The quote is taken verbatim from the first section of his book Philosophical Investigations.

Any roundabout thoughts on Wittgenstein or philosophy of language?

PI can be found here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24037478 -

Wittgenstein's argument that language is synonymous with physical gesture, as you have presented it here, is incorrect in my opinion. Language is arbitrary, not concrete. The meaning of the word chair is decoupled from any actual object or gesture. This is why language is slippery and can mean many different things. Its really a kind of miracle that we understand each other at all.

For example, Imagine I pick up a chair, present it to you and say "chair" you will probably realise that the four legged wooden object is a chair. Then imagine I begin thrusting the chair in your face and screaming "chair,chair,chair" Now the word chair means something like "I'm gonna kill you with this chair."

This is born out in anthropology. A common greeting for strangers for PNG tribes is to raise a spear in the air, charge at you and scream. Its safe to say we would not interpret this a greeting, rather a threat, and to some degree it is a threat, but also a greeting.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: blingbling]
    #24037635 -

Auto-Summary
This forum post discusses the nature of language and communication, drawing parallels between Wittgenstein's philosophy and the broader aspects of human interaction. The author agrees with the initial point about language being arbitrary and culture-specific, acknowledging that communication extends beyond language to include body language and facial expressions. They suggest that Wittgenstein's later philosophy, while not strictly semiotic, resonates with those who find value in pragmatism.

The post analyzes Wittgenstein's critique of the Augustinian view of language, emphasizing that language is often conceived as a simple, teachable system (e.g., a builder and assistant using specific terms for objects). Wittgenstein questions this assumption, highlighting that while it may work in practical situations, it doesn't represent the entirety of language. The author likens this to defining a game by its board game examples, suggesting that Wittgenstein's critique encourages a more nuanced understanding of language as a dynamic, context-dependent tool.

Overall, the post argues that Wittgenstein's insights challenge the notion of language as a static, primordial system, encouraging a broader, more practical perspective on communication. This summary captures the essence of the debate, focusing on Wittgenstein's critique and its implications for understanding language in everyday use.

Nice demonstration, I think I will take your point, about the blunt objects of language!

I think I understand your theoretical position... A semiotic system (of signs) is arbitrary in view language in general. That arbitrariness, for instance is what we encounter when we practically meet anyone from another culture who speaks another language we don't know, or vice versa. So that makes sense to me. Language systems are arbitrary as anthropological culture's as a whole are, in this sense...

I also would agree with you that communication in general is broader than language, and is largely in body language, and facial expression. So I hear, smiling, and approaching calmly and shaking hands is probably a pretty natural way for humans to communicate and greet too. Ever shake someones hands and it is like they give you a nip? Anyway, yeah, what you say is a good point about communication in general.

Maybe I can draw an analogy. Wittgenstein is not a post structuralist. He is not coming from the theoretical semiotic view, but more pragmatically. Still I think many people from your side of the stream find Wittgenstein's later philosophy and to be somewhat congenial.

Wittgenstein is not saying language just ostension, or that ostension is anything too concrete. That is Augustine's suggestion which he is questioning. Wittgstein is positively impressing and emphasizing an extent which when we tend to have an assumption that our language is something concrete to lean on, in general ways. When we "lean on language" as something there (I find these instances are very difficult to conceive and do not occur in a vacuum) we may tend to rely on this Augustinian picture of language. So naively, we might imagine that the first or "primative" speakers of our language gestured at an object, likely a noun, and made a sound, and the rest fell into place. Wittgenstein is impressing and admitting this picture of language. Why? It is not that this picture is true of language, but anyone would likely be ready to admit that practically speaking, language can be leaned on, taught, and generally surmised like this, from the ground up, so far as it is really in a practical use.

Granted this is conceiving things backwards; it is a backwards engineered view, and the assumption is what we need to question, in truth, according to Wittgenstein. He says, one can imagine asking "Is this an appropriate description". Well we might say yes, Augustine is being accurate. Even if it is true in a qualified sense, it works in so many ways to think of language this way. We know parents teach their children to talk, and to grapple with the world this way, pointing things out, even if the child is picking up so much else, other tan following pointed fingers. We call it teaching, but it is more a conditioning that occurs in living practical language paradigms. For instance, we know our epistemelogical discussions themselves, (in general, seemingly aside from language) are conditioned this way by language too. Things are pointed to and named. I read Wittgenstein as questioning and destructuring these assumptions which are embedded in language and the way we think.

I should have posted this next section, where it is more clear that Wittgenstein is questioning the primacy of ostension.

Quote:
2. That (Augustinean) philosophical concept of meaning has its place in a primitive idea of the way language functions. But one can also say that it is the idea of a language more primitive than ours. Let us imagine a language for which the description given by Augustine is right. The language is meant to serve for communication between a builder A and an assistant B. A is building with building-stones: there are blocks, pillars, slabs and beams. B has to pass the stones, and that in the order in which A needs them. For this purpose they use a language consisting of the words "block", "pillar","slab", "beam". A calls them out; — B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call. Conceive this as a complete primitive language.

3. Augustine, we might say, does describe a system of communication; only not everything that we call language is this system. And one has to say this in many cases where the question arises "Is this anappropriate description or not?" The answer is: "Yes, it is appropriate, but only for this narrowly circumscribed region, not for the whole of what you were claiming to describe. "It is as if someone were to say: "A game consists in moving objects about on a surface according to certain rules..." and we replied: You seem to be thinking of board games, but there are others. You can make your definition correct by expressly restricting it to those games.





I think what Wittgenstein is saying is analagous to what you did. Just as communication as a whole is broader than language, a proposition might be that what language actually is in use, is broader than what we normally conceive of it as, as a static system or structure of representation.

Hope this is useful. Thanks for the response, thought this one was going to fall through. .:smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24037649 -

I think what he is saying is that sometimes we think we just learn something like a theoretical concept, and we do not often think of the backgound of implied practice and training, and culture and conditioning surrounding the theoretical idea we "pick up". I would say wittgenstein is on to something to say we can especialy see this in our language.


Quote:
4. Imagine a script in which the letters were used to stand forsounds, and also as signs of emphasis and punctuation. (A script can be conceived as a language for describing sound-patterns.) Now imagine someone interpreting that script as if there were simply correspondence of letters to sounds and as if the letters had not also completely different functions. Augustine's conception of language is like such an over-simple conception of the script.

5. If we look at the example in §i we may perhaps get an inkling how much this general notion of the meaning of a word surrounds the working of language with a haze which makes clear vision impossible. It disperses the fog to study the phenomena of language in primitive kinds of application in which one can command a clear view of the aim and functioning of the words.
A child uses such primitive forms of language when it learns to talk. Here the teaching of language is not explanation, but training.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt] * 1
    #24037696 -

Yeah I'm skeptical of the idea that we can get to the truth through language as language necessarily implies categorisation which denies what is left out. Hegel tried to include what is left out in language as way to get to the absolute, but it just comes out as more rambling. Wittgenstein seems more pragmatic from what I've seen, which is why I was surprised at the way you presented him in the your opening post. As you've said though, he wasn't making some simple claim about the truth of language. Isn't part of his philosophy that most philosophical problems are just a misuse of language? Like the question what is the meaning of life?" Doesn't he claim that this is simply a faulty question? I think I read that somewhere.


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: blingbling]
    #24039187 -

What is Pragmatism?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24039808 -

What is life mannnn :gameover:


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: blingbling]
    #24040236 -

Existential bro.



I don't think you are going to get a meaning of existence-question out of Wittgenstein too easily. Maybe a question of what your theoretical, conceptual, and practical attitudes are though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24040310 -

Nah bro, this is existential.



Yeah, I think your right.

Edited by blingbling (01/26/17 04:37 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: blingbling] * 1
    #24040369 -

been a while since i read PI or engaged in any thought re phil of language..

anyway, yeah blingbling u are arguing against Augustine not Wittgenstein.. he would prob agree with ur points about greetings and call them kinds of games..

i dont really see W as putting forward any kind of positive theory of language (which he actually did in the Tractatus of his youth) but more trying to dissolve assumptions we make about language through various thought experiments (in a similar way to say Einstein describing relativity through trains)..

kurt - while i seem to agree with your musings on science as not being a 'simple empiricism' i dont quite connect how it relates to PI..

Quote:
To me it is difficult to understand the extent we/I should here look to language, and conceptual paradigms, as carrying our sense experiences, so far as we live in such a world. In what cases are the concepts and paradigms conceptually invented, and contrived, rather than discovered in relation to the world?


(note: the following is unrelated to PI)

i would think it is helpful to think of language and paradigms being there before you are. for example your rights as a human exist before you are born.

'rights', as well as other concepts like 'dinner' are not arbitrarily made up. they exist in a human society's material relation to 'the world' as you put it and itself.

the way society is organised in order to sustain itself (i.e. feed, shelter, clothe) and reproduce itself (literal reproduction, as well as replace power relations between people over generations) informs the conceptual language into which you are born.

social heirarchy and roles (parent-child, teacher-student, worker-employer, government-citizen etc) are one example of kinds of language games we play with each other which are not 'empirically discovered' in the way you might discover a new species. they are enforced.

nonetheless they are still very much grounded in the material reality of the greater organism of the society sustaining and reproducing itself...

now to come back to the original point, all that stuff is already there, you are born into it and your consciousness formed out of it. i would argue all your 'sense experience' is coloured by the language and society from whichyou are constructed.


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: blingbling]
    #24041585 -

blingbling said:
Nah bro, this is existential.



Yeah, I think your right.


That excellent video saved my night ! :heart: lol great

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: quinn]
    #24041665 -

I had a response but on second thought I think these are more scratched notes than anything to present. Thanks for the responses!

Edited by Kurt (01/26/17 07:05 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt] * 1
    #24041741 -

Cool Hypertext version of Tractatus:

http://www.tractatuslogico-philosophicus.com

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24045369 -

that is.. kinda cool.

it's almost like a web text adventure game.. just throw in some eerie background music a bit more plot and references to aliens/gods/other dimensions :strokebeard:


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: quinn] * 1
    #24045388 -

like..

Young Wittgenstein wakes up in a dark room. his head is throbbing, his fingers are covered with ink and he cant remember what he did last night..

the world is all that is the case
he thinks

suddenly piercing light crashes across his vision. a semi translucent robot maid trundles in carrying a tray of assorted colourful objects.

'Good morning sir, Katrina says it would mean the world to her if you would do that thing..'

the world is the totality of facts not things thinks Young Witgenstein as he shoves a bright orange pill into his mouth and swallows..



etc


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: quinn] * 1
    #24045641 -

I want pick your own adventure philosophy  :thumbsup:


--------------------
Kupo said:
let's fuel the robots with psilocybin.

cez said:
everyone should smoke dmt for religion.

dustinthewind13 said:
euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building.

White Beard said:
if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24047354 -

Quote:
To me it is difficult to understand the extent we/I should here look to language, and conceptual paradigms, as carrying our sense experiences, so far as we live in such a world. In what cases are the concepts and paradigms conceptually invented, and contrived, rather than discovered in relation to the world? Do we take this even as a question? Maybe not necessarily. Maybe an explanation of the world comes to a certain end, and we dwell in the use of concepts to a great degree here too?

But we may find that modern science is to a great extent not just about confirming or falsifying an isolated perception, but understanding and dealing with projected conceptual paradigms through this same game. For instance, when we question perceptions and experiences on an empirical basis, it seems to me we look to conceptual constructs, more than the case of literally falsifying hallucinations or delusions, the sorts of contents classically seated in perception. We look to theoretical language, and the framework in science.

My thought is it is possible to distinguish our perceivings, and experiences from conceptuality. I do not think it is possible to understand the situation of a modern world, so I am not going to pick up any ethical question too much. I think in a more personal way, it is just important to to stay in touch with the world, and so I end up in this "therapeutic" space, of questioning my conceptualism, and to some extent gesturing to some philosophy.



The object of science is to be able to grasp the hypothetical as a theoretical fact.

To be able to distinguish our perceivings and experiences from 'conceptuality', I believe we need to be aware of the concepts of implicit and explicit.
  • Implicit perceptions
  • Explicit sense experiences


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: sudly]
    #24048767 -

The "definition" of a scientific theory you have is fine enough to me Sudly. The terminology you invoke is questionable as always.

Instead of talking about "implicit perception and explicit sense experience" (which is essentially creating a divergence and convolution of discussions, one into epistemology, and one into cognition and consistently confused) I think you need talk about what you mean in a straight forward, and rigorous way; namely in terms of a sense based world you broadly speak to.

Consider the words "implicit" and "explicit". These terms are used to describe a literary context of meaning. Outside of our human based discussion though there is no such thing as implied or explicit meaning. Sure there is philosophy. But there is not an easily discussed, implied or explicit meaning "context"  in epistemelogical discussions.

Put it this way. Science can be given a narrative. A hypothesis becoming a theory can be a story (or seeming constituence of a deductive inference) you want to tell people of or read about. How much do you describe scientific practice this way though, as a practice? Again, how much do you really describe a sense, as an actual sense? I think you never do.

To me you are essentially just telling stories about science, and using the language of science, with a persistent obstinance to more rigorous dialogue. Granted there always seems to be a greater need talk about the conceptual paradigms, and the language of science, but it seems to me you are not even practically engaging the world in an empirical way to begin with. Keep trying though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Linguistic Philosophy [Re: Kurt]
    #24049551 -

Senses(e.g. touch) create nerve impulses that are sent to the brain and processed through cognitive processes into a perception of experience that we can remember in the future, later down the road we can conceptualise something new through mental synthesis to contrast our experiences to create a mental visualisation otherwise known as an 'implicit perception'.

You want me to simplify things, but I am telling 'stories of science' and using scientific language.
Quote:
Planes fly on explicit expectations, minds dive on implicit perceptions.



--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Academic Philosophy youbreakyoubuy 666 9 12/09/09 08:47 AM
by Cracka_X
* epistemology and entity contact
( 1 2 all )		 machineelf368 3,848 32 10/11/25 11:55 AM
by mescalopiate
* Problems in Philosophy: Knowledge chodamunky 1,168 3 05/03/04 10:38 AM
by TheShroomHermit
* Philosophy: Who needs it?
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 4,294 24 05/27/08 08:51 AM
by zouden
* What have we achieved through philosophy?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 shivas.wisdom 4,934 64 01/23/10 02:02 PM
by Freedom
* Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 8,584 72 02/16/06 09:20 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* My Philosophy Paper mushiemountain 1,434 7 04/17/07 07:34 PM
by mushiemountain
* Philosophy of Letting Go is Letting Go of Philosophy
( 1 2 3 all )		 Chronic7 3,813 44 11/21/09 08:18 AM
by shivas.wisdom

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,745 topic views. 1 members, 40 guests and 26 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.