02-04-2015, 09:48 AM
Nathan Sage,
This seems more pseudo-philosophical rhetoric. There is no stating of thesis and following a logical analysis of the thesis to show the premiss is logically sound as is generally done in philosophy. There are also obviously dubious statements such as "We are much more than one-dimensional beings." In science we are four dimensional beings; three of space and one of time. Philosophically there would have to be some basic presuppositions to even come close to critiquing this subject, and that is 4 dimensions. The only thing that can exist in one dimension is a point, that is all. So your statement that humans are one dimensional beings is completely senseless.
"Many will try to push through the tiny cracks expertly placed to synthesize freedom."
What the devil is "synthesized freedom?"
Is this suppose to arise out of a Hegelian triad? What is freedom synthesized from?
"to form (a material or abstract entity) by combining parts or elements (opposed to analyze )"
As far as I can tell it is simply a flashy word that makes absolutely no sense.
"Our hubris cannot grow so large as to think we individually stand a chance of victory over a society expertly skilled in limiting potential."
What does hubris have to do with this. Are you sure you know what the word means? Fulfilling one's potential is always a struggle whether society is oppressive or not. Or are you saying that someone like Galileo Galilei had it easy? This is a totally spurious assertion.
Most of your lines are pure sophism, or if you prefer, are "full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." - McBeth, SCENE V.
I would recommend dropping the philosophizing until you pass through your sophomoric stage, or maybe get better acquainted with what you are trying to discuss; or possibly a nice poem, we are after all a poetry workshop. Something to consider.
Welcome to the site,
Dale
PS I did write a poem for you For Nathan Sage
This seems more pseudo-philosophical rhetoric. There is no stating of thesis and following a logical analysis of the thesis to show the premiss is logically sound as is generally done in philosophy. There are also obviously dubious statements such as "We are much more than one-dimensional beings." In science we are four dimensional beings; three of space and one of time. Philosophically there would have to be some basic presuppositions to even come close to critiquing this subject, and that is 4 dimensions. The only thing that can exist in one dimension is a point, that is all. So your statement that humans are one dimensional beings is completely senseless.
"Many will try to push through the tiny cracks expertly placed to synthesize freedom."
What the devil is "synthesized freedom?"
Is this suppose to arise out of a Hegelian triad? What is freedom synthesized from?
"to form (a material or abstract entity) by combining parts or elements (opposed to analyze )"
As far as I can tell it is simply a flashy word that makes absolutely no sense.
"Our hubris cannot grow so large as to think we individually stand a chance of victory over a society expertly skilled in limiting potential."
What does hubris have to do with this. Are you sure you know what the word means? Fulfilling one's potential is always a struggle whether society is oppressive or not. Or are you saying that someone like Galileo Galilei had it easy? This is a totally spurious assertion.
Most of your lines are pure sophism, or if you prefer, are "full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." - McBeth, SCENE V.
I would recommend dropping the philosophizing until you pass through your sophomoric stage, or maybe get better acquainted with what you are trying to discuss; or possibly a nice poem, we are after all a poetry workshop. Something to consider.
Welcome to the site,
Dale
PS I did write a poem for you For Nathan Sage
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.