Kevin's Watch

Well, I don't know that he was being serious. Heh. I'm just saying it's certainly possible. If CNR was a "man", then we know the term is not defined by sexual preference; can incorporate many different types of behavior; allows for really, really silly periods in the line of work... So what does define the term?

Fist and Faith wrote:Well, I don't know that he was being serious. Heh. I'm just saying it's certainly possible. If CNR was a "man", then we know the term is not defined by sexual preference; can incorporate many different types of behavior; allows for really, really silly periods in the line of work... So what does define the term?

I guess only time will tell if he was doing "spoofs".

The famous philosopher Soren Kierkegaard said this:

A man who as a physical being is always turned toward the outside, thinking that his happiness lies outside him, finally turns inward and discovers that the source is within him.

I think this is what we all need to realize. We have the answers to the age old questions inside of each one of us.

I think many people are embarrassed to talk about the concept and try to play it off. I don't want to muddle God with man but I think people feel the same way about God. They know in their hearts he is real but turn away in fear of the reality of it all. The same is true with Man.

Why are they afraid? They think the presence of fate eliminates free will. Ultimately everyone is afraid of being a cosmic slave.

Am I wrong or right? Please discuss.

As far as it relates to me, you're wrong. I don't know in my heart that God is real.

But I certainly agree that the answers are inside each one of us. Of course, we need to read, see, and hear things outside of us to find out what's inside of us. What resonates with me? Not necessarily the same things that resonate with you, or anybody else.

babybottomfeeder wrote:Mod edit

babybottomfeeder wrote:Someone just removed this heated debate from my topic discussion. Hats off for helping us through our problems, however I believe this argument ILLUSTRATES what a man is. A man is a mind conflicted with the body. The "heart" or mind of the man is in constant struggle with the nature of the body. There are overriding biological urges at work that cause greed, lust and anger. The mind can win out in the end! I just spoke with LF on the phone and we are cool.

No disrespect to the moderators but I believe the spice of life develops through the conflicts. Though Foul and I are not really speaking right now doesn't mean we got to whitewash the past.

The mind tells us what the brain cannot know. Forgiveness is a hard and craggy path.

Hey. Fist and Faith here. I removed that, and I've done so again. It wasn't a debate; it was personal Attack & Response. I won't have it here, even if the ones involved don't doesn't mind being attacked. Attack ideas, if you want. Please don't repost it. I won't let it stay up.

Hey BottomFeeder. No hard feelings but I was only trying to go for the jugular and see if you could snap out of your vagueness. I hear it on KW and I hear it when I see you in person and on the phone, but you weren't like that in the past. I really apologize for attacking you but it was a veil for directing you into some cogency.

I remember once reading somewhere that pre-Freudian psychologists would physically assault shell shock patients in hopes it would bring them back to normalcy.

Anyway I hope bygones can be bygones and we'll re-address the original issue of this topic.

babybottomfeeder wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Well, I don't know that he was being serious. Heh. I'm just saying it's certainly possible. If CNR was a "man", then we know the term is not defined by sexual preference; can incorporate many different types of behavior; allows for really, really silly periods in the line of work... So what does define the term?

I guess only time will tell if he was doing "spoofs".

The famous philosopher Soren Kierkegaard said this:

A man who as a physical being is always turned toward the outside, thinking that his happiness lies outside him, finally turns inward and discovers that the source is within him.

I have to disagree there.

Watch this:

"A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone." - 2. Where I Lived and What I Lived For, Walden, Henry David Thoreau

I think once we let the self go and not turn inward to morbid self-attention that we can truly focus on getting things done in the world. The interior cannot exist without the exterior world, and only by improving the outside can we have more time to address what's in.

Let me prove it with an example: is the caveman as happy as my life? No. The caveman lived a short life, his teeth got rotten and other terrible things most likely happened to him before he was 30. But my life has so many things going for it, and don't doubt it for a minute. And how is that possible? Vaccines, religion, safe domiciles and a long list of friends and pets that can be easily replaced. Man's network, which he has refined over the eons, is his source of happiness. If it were true we alone were our source of happiness then the average caveman would have been whistling Dixie. But no. His stomach was growling and he was shaking to death in pre-history winters.

Is this happiness? The inner man?



Ha.

Fist and Faith wrote:I don't know in my heart that God is real.

God's reality is not so much the thing that excites me but the fact whatever we choose to believe or not believe brings us close to a comfort that is the same or not so different than religious spirituality. If your belief--hedonism or whatever it is and whatever it gives you--was unpleasant as eating sour avocados then you'd be something entirely different from what you are now.

So what makes a man? Comfort.

From that stems everything he is. The evolutionary tendency to give the mind and body rest and what terms and facts supplies that rest. From that extends his beliefs, habits, and values.

not sure what I missed but I was being serious. CNR built himself from nothing. he too a somewhat limited skill set and became a cultural icon. all-the-while not filling in at least one long held tenant of being a "man."

what I was making fun of is the navel-gazing that is philosophy. no clear cut road of reasoning was left for me.

you ask what is man, i give you CNR. maybe you can tell us what it is about hime that made you attack me?

Lord Foul wrote:

babybottomfeeder wrote:Mod edit

babybottomfeeder wrote:Someone just removed this heated debate from my topic discussion. Hats off for helping us through our problems, however I believe this argument ILLUSTRATES what a man is. A man is a mind conflicted with the body. The "heart" or mind of the man is in constant struggle with the nature of the body. There are overriding biological urges at work that cause greed, lust and anger. The mind can win out in the end! I just spoke with LF on the phone and we are cool.

No disrespect to the moderators but I believe the spice of life develops through the conflicts. Though Foul and I are not really speaking right now doesn't mean we got to whitewash the past.

The mind tells us what the brain cannot know. Forgiveness is a hard and craggy path.

Hey. Fist and Faith here. I removed that, and I've done so again. It wasn't a debate; it was personal Attack & Response. I won't have it here, even if the ones involved don't doesn't mind being attacked. Attack ideas, if you want. Please don't repost it. I won't let it stay up.

Hey BottomFeeder. No hard feelings but I was only trying to go for the jugular and see if you could snap out of your vagueness. I hear it on KW and I hear it when I see you in person and on the phone, but you weren't like that in the past. I really apologize for attacking you but it was a veil for directing you into some cogency.

I remember once reading somewhere that pre-Freudian psychologists would physically assault shell shock patients in hopes it would bring them back to normalcy.

Anyway I hope bygones can be bygones and we'll re-address the original issue of this topic.

babybottomfeeder wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Well, I don't know that he was being serious. Heh. I'm just saying it's certainly possible. If CNR was a "man", then we know the term is not defined by sexual preference; can incorporate many different types of behavior; allows for really, really silly periods in the line of work... So what does define the term?

I guess only time will tell if he was doing "spoofs".

The famous philosopher Soren Kierkegaard said this:

A man who as a physical being is always turned toward the outside, thinking that his happiness lies outside him, finally turns inward and discovers that the source is within him.

I have to disagree there.

Watch this:

"A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone." - 2. Where I Lived and What I Lived For, Walden, Henry David Thoreau

I think once we let the self go and not turn inward to morbid self-attention that we can truly focus on getting things done in the world. The interior cannot exist without the exterior world, and only by improving the outside can we have more time to address what's in.

Let me prove it with an example: is the caveman as happy as my life? No. The caveman lived a short life, his teeth got rotten and other terrible things most likely happened to him before he was 30. But my life has so many things going for it, and don't doubt it for a minute. And how is that possible? Vaccines, religion, safe domiciles and a long list of friends and pets that can be easily replaced. Man's network, which he has refined over the eons, is his source of happiness. If it were true we alone were our source of happiness then the average caveman would have been whistling Dixie. But no. His stomach was growling and he was shaking to death in pre-history winters.

Is this happiness? The inner man?



Ha.

Fist and Faith wrote:I don't know in my heart that God is real.

God's reality is not so much the thing that excites me but the fact whatever we choose to believe or not believe brings us close to a comfort that is the same or not so different than religious spirituality. If your belief--hedonism or whatever it is and whatever it gives you--was unpleasant as eating sour avocados then you'd be something entirely different from what you are now.

So what makes a man? Comfort.

From that stems everything he is. The evolutionary tendency to give the mind and body rest and what terms and facts supplies that rest. From that extends his beliefs, habits, and values.

I agree with most of the points you have made but find your overall message misguided and narrow.

A. I reject, without question, your usage of the example of the caveman. This correlation has no fact finding ability as you cannot prove what people thought in the past with wishful thinking. Furthermore, what you call "caveman" is relational only with animals, not men. We have historical documents that show the complexity of the human mind and its ability to understand the inner workings of the machine of life.

B. Sir, I search for truth in this world and the next. I want the truth, not a feeling of goodness that is not truth. I believe that belief in belief is a new aged flops and tailsism that has no place in the world. There is truth and there is belief and there is the belief of truth.

C. I do not believe you can form a cogent argument of philosophic debate and use God. You must leave religion out of cognitive discussions. Think of the debate as math and God as a logical conclusion. However, you cannot form the conclusion BEFORE you prove the proof.

Thanks for reading.

sgt.null wrote:not sure what I missed but I was being serious. CNR built himself from nothing. he too a somewhat limited skill set and became a cultural icon. all-the-while not filling in at least one long held tenant of being a "man."

what I was making fun of is the navel-gazing that is philosophy. no clear cut road of reasoning was left for me.

you ask what is man, i give you CNR. maybe you can tell us what it is about hime that made you attack me?

Hey null. Apparently bottomfeeder has honed in on me and is ignoring your posts. He typically does this when it comes to me being on the Internet or a video game. And I can say this out loud, publicly, because I'm very confident he'll scroll past anything that isn't a direct response to one of his quotes.

babybottomfeeder wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

babybottomfeeder wrote:Mod edit

Hey. Fist and Faith here. I removed that, and I've done so again. It wasn't a debate; it was personal Attack & Response. I won't have it here, even if the ones involved don't doesn't mind being attacked. Attack ideas, if you want. Please don't repost it. I won't let it stay up.

Hey BottomFeeder. No hard feelings but I was only trying to go for the jugular and see if you could snap out of your vagueness. I hear it on KW and I hear it when I see you in person and on the phone, but you weren't like that in the past. I really apologize for attacking you but it was a veil for directing you into some cogency.

I remember once reading somewhere that pre-Freudian psychologists would physically assault shell shock patients in hopes it would bring them back to normalcy.

Anyway I hope bygones can be bygones and we'll re-address the original issue of this topic.

babybottomfeeder wrote: I guess only time will tell if he was doing "spoofs".

The famous philosopher Soren Kierkegaard said this:

A man who as a physical being is always turned toward the outside, thinking that his happiness lies outside him, finally turns inward and discovers that the source is within him.

I have to disagree there.

Watch this:

"A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone." - 2. Where I Lived and What I Lived For, Walden, Henry David Thoreau

I think once we let the self go and not turn inward to morbid self-attention that we can truly focus on getting things done in the world. The interior cannot exist without the exterior world, and only by improving the outside can we have more time to address what's in.

Let me prove it with an example: is the caveman as happy as my life? No. The caveman lived a short life, his teeth got rotten and other terrible things most likely happened to him before he was 30. But my life has so many things going for it, and don't doubt it for a minute. And how is that possible? Vaccines, religion, safe domiciles and a long list of friends and pets that can be easily replaced. Man's network, which he has refined over the eons, is his source of happiness. If it were true we alone were our source of happiness then the average caveman would have been whistling Dixie. But no. His stomach was growling and he was shaking to death in pre-history winters.

Is this happiness? The inner man?



Ha.

Fist and Faith wrote:I don't know in my heart that God is real.

God's reality is not so much the thing that excites me but the fact whatever we choose to believe or not believe brings us close to a comfort that is the same or not so different than religious spirituality. If your belief--hedonism or whatever it is and whatever it gives you--was unpleasant as eating sour avocados then you'd be something entirely different from what you are now.

So what makes a man? Comfort.

From that stems everything he is. The evolutionary tendency to give the mind and body rest and what terms and facts supplies that rest. From that extends his beliefs, habits, and values.

I agree with most of the points you have made but find your overall message misguided and narrow.

A. I reject, without question, your usage of the example of the caveman. This correlation has no fact finding ability as you cannot prove what people thought in the past with wishful thinking. Furthermore, what you call "caveman" is relational only with animals, not men. We have historical documents that show the complexity of the human mind and its ability to understand the inner workings of the machine of life.

B. Sir, I search for truth in this world and the next. I want the truth, not a feeling of goodness that is not truth. I believe that belief in belief is a new aged flops and tailsism that has no place in the world. There is truth and there is belief and there is the belief of truth.

C. I do not believe you can form a cogent argument of philosophic debate and use God. You must leave religion out of cognitive discussions. Think of the debate as math and God as a logical conclusion. However, you cannot form the conclusion BEFORE you prove the proof.

Thanks for reading.

Quite a brainstorm! Milk and cookies kept you awake?

First let me say I’ve been a debater on these forums (and especially this forum) for over 10 years. Anything I first say to someone is merely going to direct them into a spotlight or a corner. And you, my friend, have handed me your argument on a silver platter. It’s a pile of meat loaf (or should we say "meta loaf"? ) and I have the fork and spoon.

First let’s begin with something personal:

babybottomfeeder wrote:C. I do not believe you can form a cogent argument of philosophic debate and use God.

Lord Foul wrote:I really apologize for attacking you but it was a veil for directing you into some cogency.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Good one.

You can ape me, my friend, but can you defeat my caveman puzzle? You’ve in fact walked into its trap. Here we go.

babybottomfeeder wrote:A. I reject, without question, your usage of the example of the caveman. This correlation has no fact finding ability as you cannot prove what people thought in the past with wishful thinking.

When did I say anything about their thought patterns? I do not postulate but we KNOW that the caveman’s life was much more trying than our own. For him to have the luxurious lives we do is one thing we know they didn’t. Therefore it’s quite possible that the caveman is indeed an unhappy lout compared to those of us who enjoy years of safety, vaccines and wild Friday nights. But if you think that thought processes is what makes a man--then perhaps the first aluminum-encased computer with artificial intelligence will qualify as a man? It will be able to go into a diner, take women out on dates and drive fast cars?

Indeed this thread is built upon pure speculation and you might as well have started a thread about parochial things like unicorns or the use of magic.

babybottomfeeder wrote:B. Sir, I search for truth in this world and the next. I want the truth, not a feeling of goodness that is not truth.

I am impressed. Your paragraph here (And this whole post in general!) is without the wild spontaneity that most Watchers flee from. Instead it is trying and groping at having some context with universal human thought. Bravo. Unfortunately it is deeply laced with misconceptions: what is to say that feelings of pleasure and goodness are not real and natural? Certainly they are part of what makes a man. Do badness and bad things and trying moments alone make a man? I would think not, or else we would be some screaming smudge on a wall in masochistic torment, progressing nowhere.

babybottomfeeder wrote:C. I do not believe you can form a cogent argument of philosophic debate and use God. You must leave religion out of cognitive discussions. Think of the debate as math and God as a logical conclusion. However, you cannot form the conclusion BEFORE you prove the proof.

Oh I must? I must leave something out? It seems we have a new dictator in residence here! I am glad someone laid down the law!

So by some universe-breaking feat of illogicity I must leave God out at the beginning entirely and then come to a conclusion that includes him at the end? Fantastic!

By your rules the following is possible: the Big Bang occurs. The 11 dimensions are created, here we have some equations showing the universe's expansion, matters expands evenly--OH SHIT THERE'S GOD. WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA.

Lord Foul wrote:

sgt.null wrote:not sure what I missed but I was being serious. CNR built himself from nothing. he too a somewhat limited skill set and became a cultural icon. all-the-while not filling in at least one long held tenant of being a "man."

what I was making fun of is the navel-gazing that is philosophy. no clear cut road of reasoning was left for me.

you ask what is man, i give you CNR. maybe you can tell us what it is about hime that made you attack me?

Hey null. Apparently bottomfeeder has honed in on me and is ignoring your posts. He typically does this when it comes to me being on the Internet or a video game. And I can say this out loud, publicly, because I'm very confident he'll scroll past anything that isn't a direct response to one of his quotes.

babybottomfeeder wrote:

Lord Foul wrote: Hey BottomFeeder. No hard feelings but I was only trying to go for the jugular and see if you could snap out of your vagueness. I hear it on KW and I hear it when I see you in person and on the phone, but you weren't like that in the past. I really apologize for attacking you but it was a veil for directing you into some cogency.

I remember once reading somewhere that pre-Freudian psychologists would physically assault shell shock patients in hopes it would bring them back to normalcy.

Anyway I hope bygones can be bygones and we'll re-address the original issue of this topic.


I have to disagree there.

Watch this:
I think once we let the self go and not turn inward to morbid self-attention that we can truly focus on getting things done in the world. The interior cannot exist without the exterior world, and only by improving the outside can we have more time to address what's in.

Let me prove it with an example: is the caveman as happy as my life? No. The caveman lived a short life, his teeth got rotten and other terrible things most likely happened to him before he was 30. But my life has so many things going for it, and don't doubt it for a minute. And how is that possible? Vaccines, religion, safe domiciles and a long list of friends and pets that can be easily replaced. Man's network, which he has refined over the eons, is his source of happiness. If it were true we alone were our source of happiness then the average caveman would have been whistling Dixie. But no. His stomach was growling and he was shaking to death in pre-history winters.

Is this happiness? The inner man?



Ha.
God's reality is not so much the thing that excites me but the fact whatever we choose to believe or not believe brings us close to a comfort that is the same or not so different than religious spirituality. If your belief--hedonism or whatever it is and whatever it gives you--was unpleasant as eating sour avocados then you'd be something entirely different from what you are now.

So what makes a man? Comfort.

From that stems everything he is. The evolutionary tendency to give the mind and body rest and what terms and facts supplies that rest. From that extends his beliefs, habits, and values.

I agree with most of the points you have made but find your overall message misguided and narrow.

A. I reject, without question, your usage of the example of the caveman. This correlation has no fact finding ability as you cannot prove what people thought in the past with wishful thinking. Furthermore, what you call "caveman" is relational only with animals, not men. We have historical documents that show the complexity of the human mind and its ability to understand the inner workings of the machine of life.

B. Sir, I search for truth in this world and the next. I want the truth, not a feeling of goodness that is not truth. I believe that belief in belief is a new aged flops and tailsism that has no place in the world. There is truth and there is belief and there is the belief of truth.

C. I do not believe you can form a cogent argument of philosophic debate and use God. You must leave religion out of cognitive discussions. Think of the debate as math and God as a logical conclusion. However, you cannot form the conclusion BEFORE you prove the proof.

Thanks for reading.

Quite a brainstorm! Milk and cookies kept you awake?

First let me say I’ve been a debater on these forums (and especially this forum) for over 10 years. Anything I first say to someone is merely going to direct them into a spotlight or a corner. And you, my friend, have handed me your argument on a silver platter. It’s a pile of meat loaf (or should we say "meta loaf"? ) and I have the fork and spoon.

First let’s begin with something personal:

babybottomfeeder wrote:C. I do not believe you can form a cogent argument of philosophic debate and use God.

Lord Foul wrote:I really apologize for attacking you but it was a veil for directing you into some cogency.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Good one.

You can ape me, my friend, but can you defeat my caveman puzzle? You’ve in fact walked into its trap. Here we go.

babybottomfeeder wrote:A. I reject, without question, your usage of the example of the caveman. This correlation has no fact finding ability as you cannot prove what people thought in the past with wishful thinking.

When did I say anything about their thought patterns? I do not postulate but we KNOW that the caveman’s life was much more trying than our own. For him to have the luxurious lives we do is one thing we know they didn’t. Therefore it’s quite possible that the caveman is indeed an unhappy lout compared to those of us who enjoy years of safety, vaccines and wild Friday nights. But if you think that thought processes is what makes a man--then perhaps the first aluminum-encased computer with artificial intelligence will qualify as a man? It will be able to go into a diner, take women out on dates and drive fast cars?

Indeed this thread is built upon pure speculation and you might as well have started a thread about parochial things like unicorns or the use of magic.

babybottomfeeder wrote:B. Sir, I search for truth in this world and the next. I want the truth, not a feeling of goodness that is not truth.

I am impressed. Your paragraph here (And this whole post in general!) is without the wild spontaneity that most Watchers flee from. Instead it is trying and groping at having some context with universal human thought. Bravo. Unfortunately it is deeply laced with misconceptions: what is to say that feelings of pleasure and goodness are not real and natural? Certainly they are part of what makes a man. Do badness and bad things and trying moments alone make a man? I would think not, or else we would be some screaming smudge on a wall in masochistic torment, progressing nowhere.

babybottomfeeder wrote:C. I do not believe you can form a cogent argument of philosophic debate and use God. You must leave religion out of cognitive discussions. Think of the debate as math and God as a logical conclusion. However, you cannot form the conclusion BEFORE you prove the proof.

Oh I must? I must leave something out? It seems we have a new dictator in residence here! I am glad someone laid down the law!

So by some universe-breaking feat of illogicity I must leave God out at the beginning entirely and then come to a conclusion that includes him at the end? Fantastic!

By your rules the following is possible: the Big Bang occurs. The 11 dimensions are created, here we have some equations showing the universe's expansion, matters expands evenly--OH SHIT THERE'S GOD. WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA.

sgt. null wrote: not sure what I missed but I was being serious. CNR built himself from nothing. he too a somewhat limited skill set and became a cultural icon. all-the-while not filling in at least one long held tenant of being a "man."

what I was making fun of is the navel-gazing that is philosophy. no clear cut road of reasoning was left for me.

you ask what is man, i give you CNR. maybe you can tell us what it is about hime that made you attack me?

First, to respond to Sarge. I didn't attack you, I cogently questioned your ability to seriously argue a point if it immediately de-evolved into a giggle guts fun punch. I take the question of what a man is very seriously and resent anyone saying that they are more serious than I, especially when they are so obviously sitting on the fence and waiting to interject humor.

It is true that there was a time in my life I was sincerely afraid of homosexual men but that was back in the early 90's. Maybe I still have some left over feelings that make me angry about the humor associated with flamboyant men but I believe many people from my generation at some point did feel like that. Remember, it was not very long ago that faggot was a commonly used word. I would never condone calling anyone faggot now because my views have changed! I am not afraid of homosexual men anymore.


To Lord Foul. There are so many holes in your flops and tails argument that the San Francisco bridge called and wants its cd back! Just kidding

You make some good and some flawed points I would like to address.

Lord Foul wrote: Let me prove it with an example: is the caveman as happy as my life? No. The caveman lived a short life, his teeth got rotten and other terrible things most likely happened to him before he was 30. But my life has so many things going for it, and don't doubt it for a minute. And how is that possible? Vaccines, religion, safe domiciles and a long list of friends and pets that can be easily replaced. Man's network, which he has refined over the eons, is his source of happiness. If it were true we alone were our source of happiness then the average caveman would have been whistling Dixie. But no. His stomach was growling and he was shaking to death in pre-history winters.

The entire paragraph postulates that the caveman was unhappy because he did not have the luxuries that you have. He was "shaking to death" in prehistory winters? This is the biggest overreach you have made in a looong time. Even if you consider the span of these "cavemen's" lives, how can you say your life was better than theirs?

I ask because:

Lord Foul wrote: the fact whatever we choose to believe or not believe brings us close to a comfort that is the same or not so different than religious spirituality. If your belief--hedonism or whatever it is and whatever it gives you--was unpleasant as eating sour avocados then you'd be something entirely different from what you are now.

So you believe that whatever man believes is the truth for him and is therefore comforting? You contradict yourself in the worst way sir!

Lord Foul wrote: So what makes a man? Comfort.

From that stems everything he is. The evolutionary tendency to give the mind and body rest and what terms and facts supplies that rest. From that extends his beliefs, habits, and values.

So, what makes a man is comfort? And comfort is distributed by "evolutionary" means to give rest to the mind and body? Therefore, if "caveman" is man, caveman had comfort! He had the same comfort happiness that YOU do. Though his framing was different, his comfort was the same. Of course, you would say it is different because you believe the mind is subjective and probably has constructed, even these words that I write.

You are basically saying that all experience the mind goes through is subjective and real to the receiver. Therefore, religion, happiness, physical comfort and so on are conditions of the mind! I say pish posh to this load of werewolfism.

Wikipedia wrote: Solipsism ( /ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner. Although the number of individuals sincerely espousing solipsism has been small, it is not uncommon for one philosopher to accuse another's arguments of entailing solipsism as an unwanted consequence, in a kind of reductio ad absurdum. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.

I reject this claim whole heartedly sir! The human experience is varied and subjective to a POINT. And then the world and the math and windings of nature take over from there. There is a truth to the world, there is not all this heavy handed new agism you speak of.

Speculated Lord Foul thought wrote: How can all the religions be right? If they exist in the mind and the mind makes the world, then that makes them all true!

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Immanuel Kant wrote: Now, that in the sphere of human cognition we have judgements which
are necessary, and in the strictest sense universal, consequently pure a priori,
it will be an easy matter to show. If we desire an example from the sciences,
we need only take any proposition in mathematics. If we cast our eyes upon
the commonest operations of the understanding, the proposition, “Every
change must have a cause,” will amply serve our purpose. In the latter case,
indeed, the conception of a cause so plainly involves the conception of a
necessity of connection with an effect, and of a strict universality of the law,
that the very notion of a cause would entirely disappear, were we to derive it,
like Hume, from a frequent association of what happens with that which
precedes; and the habit thence originating of connecting representations—
the necessity inherent in the judgement being therefore merely subjective.
Besides, without seeking for such examples of principles existing a priori in
cognition, we might easily show that such principles are the indispensable
basis of the possibility of experience itself, and consequently prove their
existence a priori. For whence could our experience itself acquire certainty,
if all the rules on which it depends were themselves empirical, and conse-
quently fortuitous? No one, therefore, can admit the validity of the use of
such rules as first principles. But, for the present, we may content ourselves
with having established the fact, that we do possess and exercise a faculty of
pure a priori cognition; and, secondly, with having pointed out the proper
tests of such cognition, namely, universality and necessity.

This picture is the kind of thing that gets me heated to the nth degree. You come on here and spout your philosophy and then end it with a funny picture? This is insincere. You want to make happy make everyone happy.

Bill Borchardt wrote: Hello? Come again? Come again? Stay. Stay a while...Stick around...as long as you can. Heaven help you. God help you. Jesus help you. Everyone else help you. Everybody...everybody make happy, make everybody happy, be a comedian?

In closing I say that you need to reevaluate your positions on the world and realize that there are fundamental truths in the world that are universal to all men. I do not believe this universal truth is solipsism, I believe it is the workings of nature. We must look with ourselves to see the truth WITHOUT filtering it with our subjective experience.

Alan Moore wrote: There's black and there is white, and there is wrong, and there is right, and there is nothing, nothing in between.

I don't think comfort is an indicator of truth. This was something rus and I argued about. I would be very uncomfortable, to put it ridiculously mildly, if my children died. What I believe are the facts of existence - i.e., death is obliteration/the end of existence; there is no supernatural; there are no beings we might call gods that have plans for, expectations of, or demands of us - do not offer the slightest comfort in various situations. OTOH, what rus believes are the facts of existence offer great comfort in many of those situations. So my truth is most definitely not the result of comfort.

Fist and Faith wrote:I don't think comfort is an indicator of truth. This was something rus and I argued about. I would be very uncomfortable, to put it ridiculously mildly, if my children died. What I believe are the facts of existence - i.e., death is obliteration/the end of existence; there is no supernatural; there are no beings we might call gods that have plans for, expectations of, or demands of us - do not offer the slightest comfort in various situations. OTOH, what rus believes are the facts of existence offer great comfort in many of those situations. So my truth is most definitely not the result of comfort.

Although I do not agree with your belief in "obliteration", I do agree with you that there is truth. I don't think there is such thing as "your" truth, there is truth and truth alone.

BBF - it would be sad to boil the awesomeness of CNR down to his sexual orientation. it is just an aspect.

sgt.null wrote:BBF - it would be sad to boil the awesomeness of CNR down to his sexual orientation. it is just an aspect.

Yes but I thought you were trying to antagonize me and that made me angry to the point where I could not see straight. It is wrong to boil down someone's entire existence to one aspect of their being. I am trying to leave personal baggage behind and understand but your giggle guts ways are confusing and often offensive to my sensibilities.

There are only so many moves the human brain can make before it breaks down into rage. We must dig deep and understand the workings of the mind and realize that the object of rage is to illustrate the realization of a truth being opposed in the brain. The brain is complex but still an organ, it reacts and is reacted upon. "Heart" is the only solution. Head and heart are one in the same. Many believe there is a thing called instinct of the mind known as heart. Really this is just the mind's ability to strike in universal realizable directions without conscious decision. In other words, it is a deeper type of knowing. "Always follow your heart" is a correct statement but one must be trained to understand the difference in the "Heart" and the heart (here I mean chemical brain instincts such as lust or anger).

babybottomfeeder wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

sgt.null wrote:not sure what I missed but I was being serious. CNR built himself from nothing. he too a somewhat limited skill set and became a cultural icon. all-the-while not filling in at least one long held tenant of being a "man."

what I was making fun of is the navel-gazing that is philosophy. no clear cut road of reasoning was left for me.

you ask what is man, i give you CNR. maybe you can tell us what it is about hime that made you attack me?

Hey null. Apparently bottomfeeder has honed in on me and is ignoring your posts. He typically does this when it comes to me being on the Internet or a video game. And I can say this out loud, publicly, because I'm very confident he'll scroll past anything that isn't a direct response to one of his quotes.

babybottomfeeder wrote: I agree with most of the points you have made but find your overall message misguided and narrow.

A. I reject, without question, your usage of the example of the caveman. This correlation has no fact finding ability as you cannot prove what people thought in the past with wishful thinking. Furthermore, what you call "caveman" is relational only with animals, not men. We have historical documents that show the complexity of the human mind and its ability to understand the inner workings of the machine of life.

B. Sir, I search for truth in this world and the next. I want the truth, not a feeling of goodness that is not truth. I believe that belief in belief is a new aged flops and tailsism that has no place in the world. There is truth and there is belief and there is the belief of truth.

C. I do not believe you can form a cogent argument of philosophic debate and use God. You must leave religion out of cognitive discussions. Think of the debate as math and God as a logical conclusion. However, you cannot form the conclusion BEFORE you prove the proof.

Thanks for reading.

Quite a brainstorm! Milk and cookies kept you awake?

First let me say I’ve been a debater on these forums (and especially this forum) for over 10 years. Anything I first say to someone is merely going to direct them into a spotlight or a corner. And you, my friend, have handed me your argument on a silver platter. It’s a pile of meat loaf (or should we say "meta loaf"? ) and I have the fork and spoon.

First let’s begin with something personal:

babybottomfeeder wrote:C. I do not believe you can form a cogent argument of philosophic debate and use God.

Lord Foul wrote:I really apologize for attacking you but it was a veil for directing you into some cogency.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Good one.

You can ape me, my friend, but can you defeat my caveman puzzle? You’ve in fact walked into its trap. Here we go.

babybottomfeeder wrote:A. I reject, without question, your usage of the example of the caveman. This correlation has no fact finding ability as you cannot prove what people thought in the past with wishful thinking.

When did I say anything about their thought patterns? I do not postulate but we KNOW that the caveman’s life was much more trying than our own. For him to have the luxurious lives we do is one thing we know they didn’t. Therefore it’s quite possible that the caveman is indeed an unhappy lout compared to those of us who enjoy years of safety, vaccines and wild Friday nights. But if you think that thought processes is what makes a man--then perhaps the first aluminum-encased computer with artificial intelligence will qualify as a man? It will be able to go into a diner, take women out on dates and drive fast cars?

Indeed this thread is built upon pure speculation and you might as well have started a thread about parochial things like unicorns or the use of magic.

babybottomfeeder wrote:B. Sir, I search for truth in this world and the next. I want the truth, not a feeling of goodness that is not truth.

I am impressed. Your paragraph here (And this whole post in general!) is without the wild spontaneity that most Watchers flee from. Instead it is trying and groping at having some context with universal human thought. Bravo. Unfortunately it is deeply laced with misconceptions: what is to say that feelings of pleasure and goodness are not real and natural? Certainly they are part of what makes a man. Do badness and bad things and trying moments alone make a man? I would think not, or else we would be some screaming smudge on a wall in masochistic torment, progressing nowhere.

babybottomfeeder wrote:C. I do not believe you can form a cogent argument of philosophic debate and use God. You must leave religion out of cognitive discussions. Think of the debate as math and God as a logical conclusion. However, you cannot form the conclusion BEFORE you prove the proof.

Oh I must? I must leave something out? It seems we have a new dictator in residence here! I am glad someone laid down the law!

So by some universe-breaking feat of illogicity I must leave God out at the beginning entirely and then come to a conclusion that includes him at the end? Fantastic!

By your rules the following is possible: the Big Bang occurs. The 11 dimensions are created, here we have some equations showing the universe's expansion, matters expands evenly--OH SHIT THERE'S GOD. WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA.

sgt. null wrote: not sure what I missed but I was being serious. CNR built himself from nothing. he too a somewhat limited skill set and became a cultural icon. all-the-while not filling in at least one long held tenant of being a "man."

what I was making fun of is the navel-gazing that is philosophy. no clear cut road of reasoning was left for me.

you ask what is man, i give you CNR. maybe you can tell us what it is about hime that made you attack me?

First, to respond to Sarge. I didn't attack you, I cogently questioned your ability to seriously argue a point if it immediately de-evolved into a giggle guts fun punch. I take the question of what a man is very seriously and resent anyone saying that they are more serious than I, especially when they are so obviously sitting on the fence and waiting to interject humor.

It is true that there was a time in my life I was sincerely afraid of homosexual men but that was back in the early 90's. Maybe I still have some left over feelings that make me angry about the humor associated with flamboyant men but I believe many people from my generation at some point did feel like that. Remember, it was not very long ago that faggot was a commonly used word. I would never condone calling anyone faggot now because my views have changed! I am not afraid of homosexual men anymore.


To Lord Foul. There are so many holes in your flops and tails argument that the San Francisco bridge called and wants its cd back! Just kidding

You make some good and some flawed points I would like to address.

Lord Foul wrote: Let me prove it with an example: is the caveman as happy as my life? No. The caveman lived a short life, his teeth got rotten and other terrible things most likely happened to him before he was 30. But my life has so many things going for it, and don't doubt it for a minute. And how is that possible? Vaccines, religion, safe domiciles and a long list of friends and pets that can be easily replaced. Man's network, which he has refined over the eons, is his source of happiness. If it were true we alone were our source of happiness then the average caveman would have been whistling Dixie. But no. His stomach was growling and he was shaking to death in pre-history winters.

The entire paragraph postulates that the caveman was unhappy because he did not have the luxuries that you have. He was "shaking to death" in prehistory winters? This is the biggest overreach you have made in a looong time. Even if you consider the span of these "cavemen's" lives, how can you say your life was better than theirs?

I ask because:

Lord Foul wrote: the fact whatever we choose to believe or not believe brings us close to a comfort that is the same or not so different than religious spirituality. If your belief--hedonism or whatever it is and whatever it gives you--was unpleasant as eating sour avocados then you'd be something entirely different from what you are now.

So you believe that whatever man believes is the truth for him and is therefore comforting? You contradict yourself in the worst way sir!

Lord Foul wrote: So what makes a man? Comfort.

From that stems everything he is. The evolutionary tendency to give the mind and body rest and what terms and facts supplies that rest. From that extends his beliefs, habits, and values.

So, what makes a man is comfort? And comfort is distributed by "evolutionary" means to give rest to the mind and body? Therefore, if "caveman" is man, caveman had comfort! He had the same comfort happiness that YOU do. Though his framing was different, his comfort was the same. Of course, you would say it is different because you believe the mind is subjective and probably has constructed, even these words that I write.

You are basically saying that all experience the mind goes through is subjective and real to the receiver. Therefore, religion, happiness, physical comfort and so on are conditions of the mind! I say pish posh to this load of werewolfism.

Wikipedia wrote: Solipsism ( /ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. As such it is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner. Although the number of individuals sincerely espousing solipsism has been small, it is not uncommon for one philosopher to accuse another's arguments of entailing solipsism as an unwanted consequence, in a kind of reductio ad absurdum. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.

I reject this claim whole heartedly sir! The human experience is varied and subjective to a POINT. And then the world and the math and windings of nature take over from there. There is a truth to the world, there is not all this heavy handed new agism you speak of.

Speculated Lord Foul thought wrote: How can all the religions be right? If they exist in the mind and the mind makes the world, then that makes them all true!

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Immanuel Kant wrote: Now, that in the sphere of human cognition we have judgements which
are necessary, and in the strictest sense universal, consequently pure a priori,
it will be an easy matter to show. If we desire an example from the sciences,
we need only take any proposition in mathematics. If we cast our eyes upon
the commonest operations of the understanding, the proposition, “Every
change must have a cause,” will amply serve our purpose. In the latter case,
indeed, the conception of a cause so plainly involves the conception of a
necessity of connection with an effect, and of a strict universality of the law,
that the very notion of a cause would entirely disappear, were we to derive it,
like Hume, from a frequent association of what happens with that which
precedes; and the habit thence originating of connecting representations—
the necessity inherent in the judgement being therefore merely subjective.
Besides, without seeking for such examples of principles existing a priori in
cognition, we might easily show that such principles are the indispensable
basis of the possibility of experience itself, and consequently prove their
existence a priori. For whence could our experience itself acquire certainty,
if all the rules on which it depends were themselves empirical, and conse-
quently fortuitous? No one, therefore, can admit the validity of the use of
such rules as first principles. But, for the present, we may content ourselves
with having established the fact, that we do possess and exercise a faculty of
pure a priori cognition; and, secondly, with having pointed out the proper
tests of such cognition, namely, universality and necessity.

This picture is the kind of thing that gets me heated to the nth degree. You come on here and spout your philosophy and then end it with a funny picture? This is insincere. You want to make happy make everyone happy.

Bill Borchardt wrote: Hello? Come again? Come again? Stay. Stay a while...Stick around...as long as you can. Heaven help you. God help you. Jesus help you. Everyone else help you. Everybody...everybody make happy, make everybody happy, be a comedian?

In closing I say that you need to reevaluate your positions on the world and realize that there are fundamental truths in the world that are universal to all men. I do not believe this universal truth is solipsism, I believe it is the workings of nature. We must look with ourselves to see the truth WITHOUT filtering it with our subjective experience.

Alan Moore wrote: There's black and there is white, and there is wrong, and there is right, and there is nothing, nothing in between.

Wow BottomFeeder. I don't know where to begin. So let me begin by saying I will be leaving the Watch for 6 months after this. I need a break from this kind of stuff and I told myself I'd never get into a debate where people who were once friends throw aside their past and go at each others' throats. But that's what happened.

I'm an idiot for it. Damn...

But oh well. Here we go:

BBF wrote:

Lord Foul wrote: So what makes a man? Comfort.

From that stems everything he is. The evolutionary tendency to give the mind and body rest and what terms and facts supplies that rest. From that extends his beliefs, habits, and values.

So, what makes a man is comfort? And comfort is distributed by "evolutionary" means to give rest to the mind and body? Therefore, if "caveman" is man, caveman had comfort! He had the same comfort happiness that YOU do. Though his framing was different, his comfort was the same. Of course, you would say it is different because you believe the mind is subjective and probably has constructed, even these words that I write.

You have become lost in your point, unable to see the forest for the tree: my original point was a man alone cannot have an inner self without the outer world/the comforts he needs. WHETHER OR NOT THE CAVEMAN IS MORE COMFORTABLE NOT IS NOT THE POINT!!!!!!!! The point is the caveman was left to himself and his own "inner self" much more than us, whereas we are surrounded by tools, toys, and a society of our custom design. And we're MOST LIKELY happier than the caveman for it. So what makes a man? The pursuit of comfort, the state of being more happier than our ancestors or at least trying to be! Your dichotomy of degrees of comfort across the eons is destroying your argument, BBF!

You accuse me of solipsism by some unbelievable stretch of the imagination, and YET HERE YOU ARE SAYING IT'S ALL RELATIVE FROM MAN TO MAN. SOLIPSISM AT ITS WORST.

BRB. VERY ANGRY.

BBF wrote:I reject this claim whole heartedly sir! The human experience is varied and subjective to a POINT. And then the world and the math and windings of nature take over from there. There is a truth to the world, there is not all this heavy handed new agism you speak of.

Speculated Lord Foul thought wrote: How can all the religions be right? If they exist in the mind and the mind makes the world, then that makes them all true!

Wrong, wrong, wrong

IF IT IS SUBJECTIVE TO A POINT THAT IS SOLIPSISM. YET YOU SAY THAT'S WRONG. Sorry...sorry. Why are we arguing about solipsism? Why why why? We are trying to define factors that make a man. Surely solipsism is a factor in some lives--that they believe they are the only one who exists--but there is much more variation than that! This thread is seriously detouring and branching off into an almost emotional tirade.

And why are you creating a "speculated" me to argue with? I DID NOT SAY THAT. I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

Please--BottomFeeder--if there's anything left of the person I remember I pray TO GOD that you debate me civilly, do not make up words and put them in my mouth, and let us begin from scratch. Let's list what we think makes a man and in a nice, giving manner and bounce our ideas off and learn from each other. How about it buddy.

Here's my list, after reading your last post:


1) Man can be a friend but sometimes they stop being friends.
2) Sometimes we are in agreement and can be tense among each other.
3) I wish we were friends but I guess that's not to be.
4) And as it's obvious from your last post man is an aggressive animal at his basest and strives to be civilized at his best.
5) Thanks for reading.

babybottomfeeder wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:I don't think comfort is an indicator of truth. This was something rus and I argued about. I would be very uncomfortable, to put it ridiculously mildly, if my children died. What I believe are the facts of existence - i.e., death is obliteration/the end of existence; there is no supernatural; there are no beings we might call gods that have plans for, expectations of, or demands of us - do not offer the slightest comfort in various situations. OTOH, what rus believes are the facts of existence offer great comfort in many of those situations. So my truth is most definitely not the result of comfort.

Although I do not agree with your belief in "obliteration", I do agree with you that there is truth. I don't think there is such thing as "your" truth, there is truth and truth alone.

Well, now we're getting into definitions. I look at things this way:

Facts come in two varieties:
1) Something that actually is, and can be proven/demonstrated. Speed of sound; height of the Empire State Building; strength of granite; composition of the human body; yadda yadda etc.

2) Something that actually is, but cannot be proven/demonstrated. It is either a fact that God (any G/god you'd care to consider) exists, or that God does not exist. There's no proof either way. If there was, we wouldn't have endless debates and arguments about it, just as we do not debate the speed of sound.

Truth comes in two varieties:
1) Something that someone considers to be a fact, but which cannot be proven. The existence of God is a good example. Or String Theory/M Theory/whatever it's called. God may or may not be a fact. But he is most certainly not a truth in my life. He is most certainly a truth in the life of many other people.

2) The ways we view the facts, and how we live as a result. The truth is, it is better to help others than to not help others. OR, the truth is, it is better to let others suffer whatever it is they're suffering, because helping them takes away from me. Another example is whether or not to love and worship God (assuming you believe God is a fact).


Fact #2 and Truth #1 are, of course, the same thing. In this sense, you're right. 'There is such thing as "your" truth, there is truth and truth alone.' Alas, we can't prove that truth, and there's no reason to expect the other person to accept it.

But Truth #2 is, indeed, "my" and "your" truth. These come down to how you feel about this and that. What my and your priorities are.


And would you two please stop quoting the entirety of each other's quoted quotes, with pictures and everything?!

Lord Foul wrote:Wow BottomFeeder. I don't know where to begin. So let me begin by saying I will be leaving the Watch for 6 months after this. I need a break from this kind of stuff and I told myself I'd never get into a debate where people who were once friends throw aside their past and go at each others' throats. But that's what happened.

6 months? Aren't you supposed to be quitting permanently in 4 months?

Murrin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Wow BottomFeeder. I don't know where to begin. So let me begin by saying I will be leaving the Watch for 6 months after this. I need a break from this kind of stuff and I told myself I'd never get into a debate where people who were once friends throw aside their past and go at each others' throats. But that's what happened.

6 months? Aren't you supposed to be quitting permanently in 4 months?

It disturbs me you're following me so closely, though I suppose I'll just take it as fan attention or something.

Often rules and indefinite vacations and quitting overlap, and this is the case. I look at my vacation-forever leaving-quitting situation as like surrounding 1945 Berlin and THEN nuking it just to make sure before invading. I've really screwed my pooch, so to speak.

I'm not going to post again unless there's an emergency. And since this is the Internet nothing really important happens.

I will go. I will go to the place where Zeph is. Rusmeister is. I can see the light already. I see TRC, CovJr and Matrixman. And that guy named Biff from 2003.


Thank you,

Lord Foul
2002-2012

Juan Valdez
2004-2008

Starring: Lord Foul ..... Himself
Juan Valdez ..... Himself


The End

ok that got weird...

Lord Foul wrote:

Murrin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Wow BottomFeeder. I don't know where to begin. So let me begin by saying I will be leaving the Watch for 6 months after this. I need a break from this kind of stuff and I told myself I'd never get into a debate where people who were once friends throw aside their past and go at each others' throats. But that's what happened.

6 months? Aren't you supposed to be quitting permanently in 4 months?

It disturbs me you're following me so closely, though I suppose I'll just take it as fan attention or something.

Often rules and indefinite vacations and quitting overlap, and this is the case. I look at my vacation-forever leaving-quitting situation as like surrounding 1945 Berlin and THEN nuking it just to make sure before invading. I've really screwed my pooch, so to speak.

I'm not going to post again unless there's an emergency. And since this is the Internet nothing really important happens.

I will go. I will go to the place where Zeph is. Rusmeister is. I can see the light already. I see TRC, CovJr and Matrixman. And that guy named Biff from 2003.


Thank you,

Lord Foul
2002-2012

Juan Valdez
2004-2008

Starring: Lord Foul ..... Himself
Juan Valdez ..... Himself


The End

What a cop out. Just because we aren't speaking any more doesn't mean you can flee an argument under the guise of being tired of the forum. This is cowardly, it is childish and it is selfish. HOW can you yell at me in your previous post, in amazingly belligerent fashion, and then flee.

You claim to be an "expert" debater but I question your ethical debating abilities.

I don't know if you will ever read this but I believe you will. I think you are being a drama queen and want attention.

You need ethics and morals, please develop them.

this has entered the andy kaufman stage...

sgt.null wrote:this has entered the andy kaufman stage...

Do you mean Kafka?