UrGod wrote:I will think on your central question here and get back to you when that thinking is more progressed.
lol! as if him thinking for one hour on it would produce a conclusion any less obscure than what he would produce had he only thought on it for five minutes.
this guy cracks me up.
'hmm... i shall ponder this query, and when i have thought long, i shall offer forth my wisdom.'
okay big guy. you get back to us on that.
UrGod wrote:Can’t wait until reality is revaluated along these lines of VO. Lots of wonderful work ahead for us to do.
i get the feeling he's in his mid twenties, what with all the eminem videos he posts. he's at the age where his dreams of being a philosophical great have not yet been dashed by the hard truth that it's all been done already, and better than he could ever manage to do it, himself. or, that it simply
can't be done because its premises are completely implausible if not so confused as to be incapable of being
either true or false, in the first place.
but you don't disturb this fantasy, because in one sense it demonstrates an enthusiasm for philosophy that is very rare... and that's what we want; more artists. just let them play, and don't ruin it for them. don't ever tell them 'your confused', or 'this is nonsense', or 'this is nothing new,' because that would discourage the fellow.
there is a reason why pragmatism was the last major movement in analytical philosophy. it suddenly dawned on history that without a 'cash value', the great philosophical systems of the world mean next to nothing... or rather, in this case, one wouldn't know the difference between a VOist and an ordinary dude. it is the question that is forever being asked by iambiguous; how do I
use VO in everyday life? what does a VOist
do in situation x, y, and z that somebody else wouldn't do?
everything 'is value' has explained nothing. everything is 'a valuing' has explained nothing. everybody 'values' has explained nothing. and when the explaining begins, nothing substantial is said that would distinguish the system from any other system that has already addressed the issues which pertain to the choices people are forced to make in any given, real existential circumstances.
'no, i don't support abortion because i'm a VOist' or 'i do support abortion because i'm a VOist' indicates nothing about why being a VOist has any relevance to making such a decision. one might as well have said the same thing, only because one's a kantian, or a sartrean, or a marxist, or a conservative, whatever.
new philosophical trends emerge everyday that claim to provide novel ways to address old problems. but they don't, because the problems have been turned upside down and inside out, with every possible approach to the matter being completely exhausted already.
still i don't have the heart to be so apprehensive toward those who are naive and grandiose enough to actually believe they are pioneers of something new and extraordinary.
why? because their delusions are harmless. poets and artists are
always better than the ordinary and mediocre, despite whether or not they can really change anything.
i dunno. i suppose my essential objection is to the belief that some new philosophy will change the world at large. i don't think a VOist, for example, should aspire to do something on a scale that large. it's a futile endeavor.
on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with establishing a cult(ure) composed of those who subscribe to a set of philosophical beliefs. epicurus and his gang did it when they left the cities and became proto-hippies. nothing wrong with that.
my terms and conditions: i will only subscribe to VO if i can get a t-shirt.
take it or leave it.