Why does everyone want to change the world?

[nosos]

Why don't you then -- I don't think I'm the one presenting as a problem here.

Because I have far better things to do with my time?

That's not my problem: in fact, I tend to think of it as Good Thing.

Well that would be the attitude which makes me vacillate between sticking you on ignore when you're talking about/to Gorski and enjoying your posts when you're not.

 

[nosos]

Perhaps you should have a word with him, if that's how you feel. I'm doing my part -- I have him on ignore, and mostly ignore his attempts to pick fights by hurling insults.

Oh come on! On this thread you kicked off with him (and me) in an entirely unprovoked and rather silly manner.

 

[nosos]

To be frank: either ignore him and shutup about it or don't and do your bit to get over the communication gap that exists between you.

 

[gorski]

Why don't you then -- I don't think I'm the one presenting as a problem here.

It may be true that g's ignorance of science; his arrogant application of his favoured philosophical theories; and his crass and insulting attitudes (not just on these forums) combine to mean that what he says largely falls on deaf ears.

That's not my problem: in fact, I tend to think of it as Good Thing.

I know much more of Science then you will ever know of Philosophy with that sort of an attitude!

I took your points on board when you came with helpful advice from your field of expertise.

You can't take mine, because you have a chip on your shoulder the size of Manhattan!

You want to be an expert in something you are not an expert in. Booo-hooo... Get a life, ffs!

Why is it so hard for you to give credit where credit is due?

Or take a hint and not ask for everything to be served on a silver platter, if a subject is complex?

I certainly gave loadsa credit to you and did not insist on being of equal knowledge if I was not! Speaks volumes of YOU! And something about me, I hope - only in the opposite direction!

When you were tutoring me all was fine, but when I was sharing what I knew and had to oppose your presumptions [LOADS!!!!] - all hell breaks loose...

I ignored you after a while but hey - here comes Johnny... once again,... and again... and again... peddling his scientific nonsense and wanting to pose as an authority in Philosophy just because he read a few books he thinks are worthy of mention...

Arrogant children! That's what I think of "scientists" like you...

 

[gorski]

But one of the things you'll never change about people is their desire to change the world; if you stopped people wanting to change the world, you'll have changed the world.

Beautifully put!!!

 

[Jonti]

... I can completely see why people don't like his writing. I can also see why people find him abrasive. I don't know 'who started it' because it started in the 2 years or so I wasn't posting on this site...

Well, if the question interests you, you could always start here and browse forwards ...

 

[gorski]

Don't bullshit, Johnny boy - for as long as I was listening and you teaching me, things were fine. The moment I was teaching you from my area of expertise - you started with power games and accused me of them. How was that possible? Only you can square that one... I immediatelly acknowledged your expertise BUT the other way round was a problem. Grow up!!!

Besides - "no matches", which kinda speaks well -> fiction, dear Johnny boy, pure science fiction!!!

 

[gorski]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=208276 - this is where it started! You couldn't acknowledge that you are well out of your depth! Instead, you'd rather pose, to yourslef more than anyone else, as if you knew what you were talking about. And you clearly do not know the ABC in the area!!!

The worst thing is, you wanted to be a prima donna based on nothing but your will to be right, regardless of how much time and aeffort you spent on something and whether or not you were taught in the subject in a critical and methodical manner.

Seriously, go see a shrink and grow up. How right Phil was about you...

 

[Jonti]

... I'd suggest I'm actually a much better realist than you given that I don't subscribe to metaphysical and epistemological fantasies so as to make reality pleasingly simple and easy to understand

This is seriously sneery stuff, and I think quite unfounded.

I'd appreciate a chance to deal with that charge. Would you be so kind as to point to where I seem to have expounded metaphysical and epistemological fantasies?

 

[gorski]

Everywhere! And I mean it! Whenever you tried with meta-theory of any sort [thinking "philosophically"] it smacked of precisely what Nos charged you with!

 

[Meltingpot]

Not at all sure everyone does want to change the world.

Usually people are interested in bettering their own circumstances which is quite normal.

It is only people who are totally satisfied with their own circs. that can permit themselves the moral high ground to think about and propose changes to the world, or changes that affect all other people.

You cannot expect the starving to be moralising.

I'd agree except with the "totally"; sometimes people in less than ideal circumstances have still had the vision and drive to try to fix things.

 

[merlin wood]

Me? Because given enough knowledge of the real world, humanity would behave much more reasonably.

 

[gorski]

Provided they would/could [be bothered to] care, in many instances, non?

Alternatively, what's "real" for you might be looking quite differently for someone else, say, from a different class, country, religious background, culture etc.

How do we agree on what's "real" or the "truth" of "reality"? Any proposals?

 

[jonH]

"Real" is what the king does

 

[gorski]

And the King today is the People!

 

[kyser_soze]

'You come at the king, you best not miss'

Omar

 

[Jonti]

Provided they would/could [be bothered to] care, in many instances, non?

Alternatively, what's "real" for you might be looking quite differently for someone else, say, from a different class, country, religious background, culture etc.

How do we agree on what's "real" or the "truth" of "reality"? Any proposals?

I've been asking you this for some time. So what's your answer?

 

[merlin wood]

Provided they would/could [be bothered to] care, in many instances, non?

Alternatively, what's "real" for you might be looking quite differently for someone else, say, from a different class, country, religious background, culture etc.

How do we agree on what's "real" or the "truth" of "reality"? Any proposals?

Anyone who knows about gravity can conclude that it's real. Suppose that what human beings need to know about to behave more reasonably is something as real and invisible as gravity. And especially if this is something that makes their experience possible.

Creatures of reason who do not know their own minds need not be expected to make enough sense of their lives,

 

[gorski]

Jonti, you are hopeless!!!

MW - from Galileo and Bruno etc. we have the same thing, done at the same time, in Art by Leonardo [cutting corpses to see it "for reaw" and not mediated by the Dogam, i.e. Mother Church] etc.; in politics - by Machiavelli: the Power principle. Thankfully, we can see more than they did.

Just as you can't pretend everything is explainable by gravity [in the "physical world"], you can't pretend everything in All Things Human is explainable by gravity of the political world = power relationships. Especially since the advent of Late, Developed capitalism, but in essence such a possibility was in place since the overthrow of Feudalism, where from ownership of land power followed inextricably.

In [late] Capitalism [especially] that is not the case. We know better. Spinoza's strand of modernity is trying to deduce everything more geometrico [even Ethics]. Some argue that was only possible because they forgot some elementary lessons from Antiquity [to on legetai polachos by Aristotle, for instance], namely that a number of principles reign in All things Human, unlike Maths or Geometry.

Such simplifications and efforts towards reductionism ended in terribly deterministic Spinozistic stuff where one can't even wish stuff one os not supposed to wish. So, even with expressis verbis insistence on freedom everywhere - there is none!

A lesson we have learned in a good part of Humanities, esp. Critical Theory. If only some in Science would take it on board... Not that there aren't those in Humanities who couldn't learn the ABC, too, mind...

 

[Falcon]

Imagine the guy who invented the cure to diptheria waking up one morning and giving birth to the opinion "Why does everyone want to change the world?".

 

[muckypup]

perfection is not of this world and neither is justice. however the struggle towards both is, for me, an expression of beauty and of love.

 

[goldenecitrone]

People can change. After 20 years intensive psychotherapy or a sharp blow to the head.

 

[deeplight]

Awareness changes everything.

Share awareness.

Share a change in how we live our lives.