The Price of Wisdom - Page 2

I quoted the definition to be funny. I'm sorry, but every time I see you folks respond to it, it's rather begrudgingly, which makes me chuckle out loud. Wyote... 1a...that's awesome.

By God (if God exists), all things considered about the definition, Webster could have condensed it to 1a.

The thing that made Socrates a philosopher is that he challenged people's wisdom for the love of wisdom. He might say something to the effect of: "Excuse me, sir. Don't you know a lot about..." Then he would go into his brilliant dialectic method.

I guess since webster could have condensed the definition to 1a, then Lefty was right: what the hell is the point of asking? Well, Lefty, good point... but, I managed to get a few good chuckles out of it.

Hey, that's more than a good enough reason, says me.

So, Angel, anyone who thinks "deeply" is a philosopher although this person may never articulate those "deep" thoughts? Some people have "deep" thoughts about Texas Holdum and Football...and I know these people, but I would in no way qualify them as philosophers based solely on that criterion. Then again, maybe they're holding back on the really deep stuff. So, we have to define what we mean by "deep" so as not to continually equivocate.

You've got "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handy. Let us assume Jack Handy were real. Is he posing any philosophical questions? Naw. They're parodies. Can any philosophical discourse arise from those "deep thoughts?" Only so far as to say that they're not deep thoughts. So, the point here (restated) is: some of those deep thoughts to which you are referring are not so deep, and are worthy of philosophical discourse only so far as to determine that they're not deep.

Any subject can have infinite depth, all things affect all things, football can become a discussion of psychology, from the minds of the players to the masses of people helping these GAME/SPORT PLAYERS (PLAYERS!!!!) Make MILLIONS of dollars.

And since philosophy is the love of wisdom, by definition, it seems perfectly fair to call any who love wisdom or intellectual persuits a philosopher, if there is a specific implied meaning to a profession called philosophy then that takes whatever credentials required.

I go to philosophy club meetings every Friday at my school and notice that when everyone is in agreement that nothing is left to be said. Well, I would rather formally argue about something than for everyone to completely agree with me. Certainly the individual mind is more complex than to settle on a given argument. There are always intricacies that can be worked out.

These guys debate Texas Holdum with the voracity of logicians and ethicists. It's amazing. Infinite depth is an Aristotellian concept with no rational basis. One can logically deduce that something is infinite, however how can one rationally conceive infinity, that person being in every way finite? But, that's beside the point. One can, in fact, hold philosophical discourse about games, and to do so requires in-depth knowledge about such games. To have in-depth knowledge and to use that in-depth knowledge in philosophical discourse qualifies the knowledgeable person as a philosopher; therefore, a person with in-depth knowledge about games who uses that in-depth knowledge to hold philosophical discourse about such games is a philosopher. It is a valid argument.

We might say that in-depth knowledge is knowledge that is advanced and is technical.

In depth can also be extensive singular perspective, one that can only be derived from any one's self, there again allowing anyone to be a deep thinker on any subject and how it pertains to them and their life, or the world as they understand it.

Open context is non-binding, just because you are talking about a football game does not mean that you even have to refer to actual aspects of the game, you can refer to any number of "infinite" (as we understand the concept) possible aspects and effects.

Essentially, you're saying one who has in-depth knowledge has advanced knowledge that is technical. That person, therefore, has "an extensive singular perspective that can only be derived from [what has been studied or from what has been experienced first hand]." Our two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

A theist once told me that I haven't become aware of my inner Self. I responded, "Enlighten me as to what "Self" is and perhaps I shall find it. The point is: what the hell does a person mean when he or she says "self?" I am myself. Thus, self implies everything that I am as a man, a person, a human, what? What is self awareness? Well, if you think about who you are as a person too long, then you tend to overaccentuate your own flaws. So, are we strictly talking about the body when we're talking about self? There's too much room to equivocate about the word "self."

Gosh, given the studies on self-awareness, maybe that theist was trying to kill me.