Hicup
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,081
- Reaction score
- 2,709
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
And... What do you find is inherently dangerous about the Tea Party?
Tim-
And... What do you find is inherently dangerous about the Tea Party?
Tim-
No, philosophy is the root of all reason and knowledge. Language is a tool to communicate effectively and efficiently the knowledge and reason gained by philosophy. Our intelligence distinguishes us from animals, far greater than written language. Which while powerful in and of itself, is but one consequence of our intelligence.
It's a faux-small party branch of the main party status quo. They present themselves as an actual option and something that would push towards smaller government, but work with the very parties responsible for gross expansion of powers of the government against the free exercise of rights of the People. They are nothing more than wolves in sheeps clothing trying to entice dissatisfied voters back into the fold of the status quo even though they will do nothing to actually change the status quo.
Snake oil salesmen, carpetbaggers and nothing more.
So which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Philosophy can't exist without language. Language, however, can exist without philosophy. Therefore, which is more essential? I'm not diminishing the importance of philosophy by any stretch. However, language is clearly at the root of all understanding.
Nobody gives a **** about the opinions of a dead man.
Thinking came first, quite clearly. Language does not make intelligence, intelligence makes language. Philosophy can and does exist without language. It's merely harder to communicate. The written language is indeed very powerful, but it didn't invent itself nor did it invent philosophy. Thinking has always been first, everything else we wield has fallen from that.
Communication isn't harder, it's impossible without language.
Again, does language make intelligence or does intelligence make language?
That's a chicken-and-egg question.
Either way, one cannot exist without the other.
Without language, we're merely animals reacting to the world around us.
Language makes conceptualization and abstract thinking possible. Without it, Philosophy would be nonexistent.
He didn't have the right to life anyway, being in a social medicine country. Now that he lost freedom of religion, apparently he saw no point in living any more.
Various forms, yes. Spoken developed rather early as a necessity to express philosophy, written later.
Very clearly intelligence makes language. I cannot engage in language without intelligence, impossible. Looking at written words does not make me more intelligent; I must possess the intelligence to understand the written word. This is obvious.
Yes you can. You can certainly have intelligence without language. It is very possible to think without being able to express your thoughts to others. Language makes that communication of philosophy possible, so language is necessary for the societies that we've constructed. But without intelligence, there is no language. Without substantial intelligence, there is no written language. Everything flows from intelligence.
No, my thinking is not dependent upon my ability to tell you what it is that I'm thinking.
Is this candidate #1 for this year's Darwin award?
Just a small point darwin awards involve removing your crappy genes from the gene pool which means you have to do it before breeding. my thought is that a 78 year old man either already polluted the gene pool with his seed, or has other more direct reasons than his suicide for his darwin award. I don't know if has actually had children or not, but if he doesn't there is another reason he didn't spread his seed than his suicide. I am just saying you have to do more than just die in a spectacularly stupid way for a darwin.