First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Schrodinger's Cat
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 11/3/09

DomFortress wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



the "=" sign is just a transition tool, it doesn't exactly "exist" so to speak so there's no point in pondering further about other than how it's used. It just helps to explain causality and make connections and so forth.

E = mc^2 is something that some people might need to know but for others not. One thing I know for sure some people care less of an explanation of is the act of sex. Certainly there are many ways to perform it, the Karma Sutra provides example, but some people are could care less about it's exact execution, especially if they're virgin, so long as they can get along with their partner during intercourse and reach climax. So you can say we accept sex, but may not fully understand all of the mechanics that are involved and won't need to because such understanding is of little use to some of us.

Are you sure that's what the Karma Sutra was only good for? According to the general popular belief that it's "the standard work on human sexual behavior in Sanskrit literature written by the Indian scholar Mallanāga Vātsyāyana. A portion of the work consists of practical advice on sex".

And just for that, the "=" sign is such a transitional tool that it(mass) can relate(gravitationally pull) two events(space time) by identifying the transition point(event horizon). After all, that's how hermeneutics define truth based on objectivity and relativism, not general popular belief. When "One of the lessons of philosophical hermeneutics is exactly that intellectual innovation of this sort depends on—indeed, is a manifestation of—the self-renewing power of tradition, of its dynamism, and its interpretability and reinterpretability".(citation)


I'm not denying the wisdom that can come from the Kama Sutra, I'm just saying humanity is not going to be extinct just because we didn't learn 'proper technique' for sex. Heck we've been doing it since the beginning of time. But if you want to know how to further extend pleasure in sex, go ahead and read it.

You make it sound like the "=" actually does something to distort time and space. It's an identifier, It doesn't take up time or space, just the symbol that represents it. Not everything that the mind can concieve may actually exist in the universe, like pink dragon-unicorns. Also actions do not "exist".

Dom, just because you find hermeneutics on the web doesn't give you the right to casually talk about it. I had to read an entire book about it from the person who originally brought the concept to light. It was not easy reading. I'm just going to say that your summary of what hermeneutics is doesn't do justice, even though that's is a blunt way of looking at it (though there's a lot of misunderstanding that I see). Go read "Truth and Method" by Gadamer, your head will explode if a professor can't help you understand the ambiguity of the book.

That's only because you downplayed the act of sex itself, while I OTOH don't. Just like you downplayed quantum mechanics, when you don't have the answer that I seek.

I can casually talk about hermeneutics because I've been practicing it before the invention of the internet, without me ever known what it's called. Therefore the internet citation is for your convenience, not mine.


Really now, you think you've been practicing hermeneutics? It's more like you use it as an excuse to use your person experience as a foundation of truth without considering other's opinions. Yes, I know sex is a wonderful thing and quantum physics and damn useful. I'm just saying some people won't need that kind of knowledge for their particular lifestyle. For example, I can accept the theories of quantum physics but what good will it do me to learn about the deep understanding of it if I can't utilize it? A good number of philosophers don't like to talk too much on metaphysics because they don't think the field itself can provide pragmatic results. The other half of the philosophers think metaphysics is good because it'll reveal the truth in our world and from there we could perhaps reform our misconceptions. For example, we used to accept geocentricity but now we accept heliocentricity.
Posted 11/3/09

crunchypibb wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



the "=" sign is just a transition tool, it doesn't exactly "exist" so to speak so there's no point in pondering further about other than how it's used. It just helps to explain causality and make connections and so forth.

E = mc^2 is something that some people might need to know but for others not. One thing I know for sure some people care less of an explanation of is the act of sex. Certainly there are many ways to perform it, the Karma Sutra provides example, but some people are could care less about it's exact execution, especially if they're virgin, so long as they can get along with their partner during intercourse and reach climax. So you can say we accept sex, but may not fully understand all of the mechanics that are involved and won't need to because such understanding is of little use to some of us.

Are you sure that's what the Karma Sutra was only good for? According to the general popular belief that it's "the standard work on human sexual behavior in Sanskrit literature written by the Indian scholar Mallanāga Vātsyāyana. A portion of the work consists of practical advice on sex".

And just for that, the "=" sign is such a transitional tool that it(mass) can relate(gravitationally pull) two events(space time) by identifying the transition point(event horizon). After all, that's how hermeneutics define truth based on objectivity and relativism, not general popular belief. When "One of the lessons of philosophical hermeneutics is exactly that intellectual innovation of this sort depends on—indeed, is a manifestation of—the self-renewing power of tradition, of its dynamism, and its interpretability and reinterpretability".(citation)


I'm not denying the wisdom that can come from the Kama Sutra, I'm just saying humanity is not going to be extinct just because we didn't learn 'proper technique' for sex. Heck we've been doing it since the beginning of time. But if you want to know how to further extend pleasure in sex, go ahead and read it.

You make it sound like the "=" actually does something to distort time and space. It's an identifier, It doesn't take up time or space, just the symbol that represents it. Not everything that the mind can concieve may actually exist in the universe, like pink dragon-unicorns. Also actions do not "exist".

Dom, just because you find hermeneutics on the web doesn't give you the right to casually talk about it. I had to read an entire book about it from the person who originally brought the concept to light. It was not easy reading. I'm just going to say that your summary of what hermeneutics is doesn't do justice, even though that's is a blunt way of looking at it (though there's a lot of misunderstanding that I see). Go read "Truth and Method" by Gadamer, your head will explode if a professor can't help you understand the ambiguity of the book.

That's only because you downplayed the act of sex itself, while I OTOH don't. Just like you downplayed quantum mechanics, when you don't have the answer that I seek.

I can casually talk about hermeneutics because I've been practicing it before the invention of the internet, without me ever known what it's called. Therefore the internet citation is for your convenience, not mine.


Really now, you think you've been practicing hermeneutics? It's more like you use it as an excuse to use your person experience as a foundation of truth without considering other's opinions. Yes, I know sex is a wonderful thing and quantum physics and damn useful. I'm just saying some people won't need that kind of knowledge for their particular lifestyle. For example, I can accept the theories of quantum physics but what good will it do me to learn about the deep understanding of it if I can't utilize it? A good number of philosophers don't like to talk too much on metaphysics because they don't think the field itself can provide pragmatic results. The other half of the philosophers think metaphysics is good because it'll reveal the truth in our world and from there we could perhaps reform our misconceptions. For example, we used to accept geocentricity but now we accept heliocentricity.

And can you metaphorically concur what kind of philosopher I am?
Posted 1/3/10
User has nuked, but anyone is welcomed to recreate.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.