“Strike at the Root”

[coberst]

“Strike at the Root”

Descartes’ legacy to all of us via philosophy can be labeled, I think, as rationalism (discovery of truth through pure reason), dichotomy (mind/body split), and certainty. Even though very few of us know anything about philosophy, almost everything we think results from the philosophy we inherit through social osmosis (unconscious assimilation). Philosophy theory permeates almost all of our mental gymnastics without our conscious recognition.

I speculate that such is true because it fits well for the ego of all humans, especially philosophers, and because it also fits well with the interests of the Christian faith. Descartes’ legacy makes it easy to place our self in a hierarchy of being with humans one step below God and a giant step above animals.

It appears to me that psychology would say that we are essentially creatures of desire rather than creatures of contemplation. A modern day Descartes, who was tuned into Freudian psychology, might very well conclude that “I desire, therefore, I am”.

If we want to understand our self and our world we will necessarily have to learn some bit of philosophy and psychology. We become interested in philosophy when we begin to ask questions that go to the ‘root’ of all matters and we turn to psychology if we want to comprehend why humans do the things we do.

Someone said that only one person in a thousand ever “strikes at the root”. I do not think a liberal democracy in a hi-tech world can survive if such remains to be true. Hi-tech gives us the ability to easily destroy our self and our world; liberal democracy makes all citizens to be sovereign and thus responsible in some small way for the integrity of our existence.

We are all in the same boat and if only one person in a thousand accepts the responsibility of democracy I think our species may have a very limited engagement on this planet. I think that we must become much more intellectually sophisticated than we are now and I do not expect that our educational systems can help us much in that effort. We must become independent learners.

 

[Paladin]

“Strike at the Root”

Descartes’ legacy to all of us via philosophy can be labeled, I think, as rationalism (discovery of truth through pure reason), dichotomy (mind/body split), and certainty. Even though very few of us know anything about philosophy, almost everything we think results from the philosophy we inherit through social osmosis (unconscious assimilation). Philosophy theory permeates almost all of our mental gymnastics without our conscious recognition.

I speculate that such is true because it fits well for the ego of all humans, especially philosophers, and because it also fits well with the interests of the Christian faith. Descartes’ legacy makes it easy to place our self in a hierarchy of being with humans one step below God and a giant step above animals.

It appears to me that psychology would say that we are essentially creatures of desire rather than creatures of contemplation. A modern day Descartes, who was tuned into Freudian psychology, might very well conclude that “I desire, therefore, I am”.

If we want to understand our self and our world we will necessarily have to learn some bit of philosophy and psychology. We become interested in philosophy when we begin to ask questions that go to the ‘root’ of all matters and we turn to psychology if we want to comprehend why humans do the things we do.

Someone said that only one person in a thousand ever “strikes at the root”. I do not think a liberal democracy in a hi-tech world can survive if such remains to be true. Hi-tech gives us the ability to easily destroy our self and our world; liberal democracy makes all citizens to be sovereign and thus responsible in some small way for the integrity of our existence.

We are all in the same boat and if only one person in a thousand accepts the responsibility of democracy I think our species may have a very limited engagement on this planet. I think that we must become much more intellectually sophisticated than we are now and I do not expect that our educational systems can help us much in that effort. We must become independent learners.

Now see, this is the only part I take issue with. First, most Christians I know do not grasp logic and reason but lean towards a thin sort of apologetic.
And as for animals, they can be pretty smart. Why I knew of a horse who could do math, understood basic chemistry and loved history. Though to be honest he never could grasp philosophy let alone existentialism.

Apparently, you can't put Descartes before the horse...

 

[seattlegal]

Now see, this is the only part I take issue with. First, most Christians I know do not grasp logic and reason but lean towards a thin sort of apologetic.
And as for animals, they can be pretty smart. Why I knew of a horse who could do math, understood basic chemistry and loved history. Though to be honest he never could grasp philosophy let alone existentialism.

Apparently, you can't put Descartes before the horse...

How smart is this fish?

How about this one?

 

[Nick_A]

coberst

We are all in the same boat and if only one person in a thousand accepts the responsibility of democracy I think our species may have a very limited engagement on this planet. I think that we must become much more intellectually sophisticated than we are now and I do not expect that our educational systems can help us much in that effort. We must become independent learners.

As we know in Ecclesiastes, everything moves in cycles so a democracy must die because of the human condition reqardless of the platitudes. Part ot the reason for this IMO is that such a society on its own becomes increasingly secular. That being the case, the balance between obligations and rights becomes incrreasingly imbalanced in favor of rights. The ability to appreciate obligations is a revelation from higher consciousness and as it becomes increasingly irrelevent, we become more preoccupied with rights which is the fast way to societal destruction.

I know it seems depressing but I cannot see a way around it because the problem is not logical but rather the result of a corrupted heart and logic cannot contend with it but seeks instead to justify it.

​

 

[Paladin]

How smart is this fish?

How about this one?

Like I said SG, MOST not ALL

 

[Snoopy]

Apparently, you can't put Descartes before the horse...

That was terrible.

And remember -

Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"

s.

 

[Paladin]

Well, that's how he died Snoopy. The bartender asked if he would like another round and he replied " I think not" and POOF he disappeared!

 

[Snoopy]

Well, that's how he died Snoopy. The bartender asked if he would like another round and he replied " I think not" and POOF he disappeared!

Right, that's an infraction!

s.

 

[wil]

The story I heard was the bartender when finding descarte looking dejectedly into his drink said, "Penny for your thoughts"...

 

[Tao_Equus]

Now see, this is the only part I take issue with. First, most Christians I know do not grasp logic and reason but lean towards a thin sort of apologetic.
And as for animals, they can be pretty smart. Why I knew of a horse who could do math, understood basic chemistry and loved history. Though to be honest he never could grasp philosophy let alone existentialism.

Apparently, you can't put Descartes before the horse...

How smart is this fish?

How about this one?

That was terrible.

And remember -

Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"

s.[/size][/font]

Well, that's how he died Snoopy. The bartender asked if he would like another round and he replied " I think not" and POOF he disappeared!

Now that did have me laughing out loud!! Genius! Though talking horses, fish and failed philosophical existentialists who breathe their last at the bar could make me paranoid!

 

[Nick_A]

This place keeps lowering the bar.

 

[Snoopy]

Genius!

Of course the genius to whom I alluded was Monty Python:

The Philosopher's Song.

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya'
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed....

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away;
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!






s.

 

[Paladin]

Whats the matter Nick, you catch someone having fun?

 

[Snoopy]

Whats the matter Nick, you catch someone having fun?

Maybe he's joining in, y'know, "bar"

Or perhaps he's just pissed (American meaning) at the failure to reference Simone Weil.

s.

 

[seattlegal]

Whats the matter Nick, you catch someone having fun?

Epicurians had fun eating pickles.
{Pickled beets, anyone? (Descartes liked to be pickled.) Perhaps other pickled root vegetables?}

 

[seattlegal]

This place keeps lowering the bar.

How are you going to strike at the root if you don't lower the bar?

 

[Nick_A]

Whats the matter Nick, you catch someone having fun?

What a nudge! Wil wrote:

The story I heard was the bartender when finding descarte looking dejectedly into his drink said, "Penny for your thoughts"...

I make a simple bar joke and you get insulted. Sheesh. I play a job at a nursing home and people in wheelchairs appreciate bar jokes when I offer an imaginary toast to some form of silliness. Here we only have approved humor.

 

[wil]

This place keeps lowering the bar.

three elephants jumpe out the plane, two landed on the ground and one in the water, ba-dump, spshhh.

Of course the genius to whom I alluded was Monty Python:

The Philosopher's Song.

Now the funny thing is...(hehe funny thing happened on the way to this forum) anyway since coberst likes to do these drive bys tossing out a thread on half a dozen different forums... I thought I'd take a look over the net to see how other forums are responding and low and behold the very same MP sketch was quoted there!! (well on the thread that got some responses I mean...)

Sheesh. I play a job at a nursing home and people in wheelchairs appreciate bar jokes

What did the blond say when she walked into the bar?

Ouch.

Seriously anytime someone mentions nursing homes and wheel chairs it reminds me of giving them unicycle rides...gotta do that again...such fun.

 

[Paladin]

What a nudge! Wil wrote:


I make a simple bar joke and you get insulted. Sheesh. I play a job at a nursing home and people in wheelchairs appreciate bar jokes when I offer an imaginary toast to some form of silliness. Here we only have approved humor.

Wow, you mean all that charm, and a sense of humor? Watch out ladies!

 

[Nick_A]

Wow, you mean all that charm, and a sense of humor? Watch out ladies!

Uncle Nick is not the rage of the geriatric set for nothing. A lot of Activities directors believe residents must be talked to like babies. Yet many have bent elbows over the bar in their day and appreciate when someone like me celebrates a toast and some fond memories as politically incorrect as it may seem. One director asked me if I really had a drink on the bandstand. I had to assure her it was an just an act to make people happy. To this day I don't think she ever understood. She had no idea of the attraction of a friendly tavern or house party in former times that so many of these residents remember so well.