🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:bCOpd.6824$cE3.611@clgrps12...
> In article <BcNpd.208595$9b.36973@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> ><snip - as irrelevant to the point at hand>
> >
> >> >Nope.  You have nothing to teach.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> You would have no way of knowing that since in order to, you would have
> >had to
> >> have agreed to engage with me as a pupil in the Socratic method of
> >teaching
> >> autononous thinking.
> >>
> >
> >I do have very good evidence of that assertion, since if you were
schooled
> >in such methods, I would have expected you to apply them and understand
> >them.  You didn't.
>
> Yes I did. But let's face facts, you have no idea what they are, you're
talking
> out of your ass.
>
> >Those who understand Socrates, Hume, Berkeley,
> >Descartes and any other number of the world's best known critical
thinkers
> >tend to use the lessons they learn from them; which is why they are the
> >world's best-known critical thinkers.  Since neither you, nor I, can make
> >the same claim, we have to assume that they did know something we don't.
>
> argumentum ad verecundiam aka appeal to authority
>
> Hume was a drunk who played backgammon most of the time, though he
certainly
> made some cutting-edge observations for his time.  The people you're
talking
> about had more limited faculties when they were alive.  Anyone who uses
today's
> critical thinking faculties effectively has a very good shot at being
superior
> to any philosopher from the past.  And anyone in the future willing to
devote
> themselves to thinking critically will have a pretty good shot at arriving
at a
> worldview superior to mine. Razi pretty much defined how one should
respect and
> use knowledge from the past but not be chained by the authority of the
> ancients:
>
>
> "Razi believed that contemporary scientists and scholars, because of
> accumulated knowledge at their disposal are, by far, better equipped, more
> knowledgeable, and competent than the ancients. Razi attempt to overthrow
blind
> reverence and the unchallenged authority of ancient sages encouraged and
> stimulated research and advances in the arts, technology, and the
sciences. "
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razi
>
> >
> >You see, teaching places certain responsibilities on the teacher, and
> >certain ones on the student.
>
> In the socratic method, yes.  I claimed you are unaware of the
responsibilities
> of the teacher or the student, and I maintain that claim.
>

Again.  You clearly have no idea about what you are taliking about.

> >In addition, people who need to make a claim about superiority, rarely
are;
> >if they were, it would be obvious to anyone.
>
> You've heard about gifted kids not wanting to get bullied, haven't you?
> Though, that's not the reason YOU were always bulled...
>
>
> > Therefore, your claim of being
> >"a high-functioning autodidak",
>
> autodidact.  Need a dictionary?
>
Audodidact is the angliciszed spelling of the Greek Autodidak; to be
self-taught.  No, I don't need a dictionary, and when I do, I readily use
one.

>
> >  If that is the case, why are you not
> >a professor at some recognized university.
>
> Are you offering to pay my tuition and finance my quest for tenure?
>
If there is a will Danny boy, there is a way.
>
>  Most universities provide a
> >method of challenging undergraduate degrees so one can go directly into
> >graduate work.  And, if you can function that highly in research, why not
> >write a Phd thesis within your first year and go from there.  Once you
have
> >done that, then your wild claims will become acceptable.
>
> Why bother?  While tenured proffing is a pretty good gig, I know how to
make
> money much more easily.  I couldn't care less how 'acceptable' my claims
are,
> wild or not.
>
Because otherwise, you are simply proving my point that you are likely some
high-school dropout with dillusions of grandure.  You have certainly
provided ample eveidence of that.

>
>
> >
> >How about the claim to being well on the way to becoming a Philosopher
King?
> >Yet, you haven't shown any evidence that you even know how to form a
decent
> >argument, and even if you do, your tendency to not bother indicates a
> >complete lack of intellectual discipline.
>
> Every one of my arguments is evidence that I can form cogent, valid
arguments.
>  Since you are not challenging a specific argument your statement is
vacuous.
>
>
No.  It is evidence that you have no idea about the rules of an argument,
and that you are certainly good at circular fallacies and ad hominem
arguments and not much else.
>
> >.  For one thing, for philosophers, the truth or falsity of
> >an argument is irrelevant; only its validity is important.
>
> Actually no, in the socratic method reason always trumps 'fact'.  Which is
the
> main hurdle you haven't been able to jump all along.
>
There is no such thing as fact in any Scoratic method.  Again, eveidence
that you nothing about which you babble on about.

>
> >  The
> >preponderance of evidence here
>
> See above.
>
>
> I sure did cut a lot of text in that post.  What a self-satisfied
bloviator you
> are, eh??
>
I could cut virtuallly all of your text and lose nothing.  However, everyone
else show at least enjoy the benefit of a show, eh?