Philosophy Discussion Forums

Meleagar wrote:
Who would I be to label their position as "immature"? All that does in my experience is set myself up as "more mature" and creates a gap between me and them. I don't wish to see myself as better or more mature or more spiritual or more intelligent than anyone else, because I don't enjoy seeing other people as "less" than me, nor do I enjoy seeing them as "wrong" (and thus in need of my correction) or "ignorant" (and thus in need of my wisdom), etc. That generates personal interactions I don't find to be enjoyable.

I appreciate the provocation of thought. Your site is really a very enjoyable read with a great wealth of resources. Thanks for directing me there.

Thank you Meleagar for the acknowledgement (re the website).

However, as to the maturity question, this was not to imply superiority over others, merely the recognition that various stages of development are inherent to life.

For example, if you have children, or were to have children, would you allow them to drive your car, or fly a plane, unaided, say at 4 years old? Presumably not.

Perhaps then instead of 'maturity' call it "phases of development" or phases of capability, or simply phases.

But the question still stands, if I were an alien looking down at our race, what 'label' might best approximate our present phase of development?

Yes, there are variations within groups, communities, nations, and the global dynamic, but that alien might conclude that as a global culture, we're at _______________phase of development.

What is that phase?

Cheers,
Steve

Meleagar wrote:

You can't be forced by proof to accept your free will; it can only be seized by unevidenced faith (IMO). The machine of logic cannot reach the output "I have free will"; that's a logical contradiction. One's free will cannot be coerced by a computation of scientific evidence and logic; that would violate its own premise. You ask for the logically absurd to occur when you ask for proof of product of free will, or proof of free will.

I completely agree.I had presumed that you wrote from the point of view of reason, not faith.

What in your view is the comparative moral status of the pleasure principle?

Belinda wrote:

I note this is a common expectation of many (usually voiced by skeptics). However, in times past, the extraordinary belief that the Earth was round, when compared with the then perception of it being flat, did not require extraordinary evidence. Only the relatively trivial observation that the mast of a ship was observed first as it came over the horizon.

That medieval people believed that the Earth was flat is not true. The notion arises because of a fanciful story about Christopher Columbus by Washington Irving.However, it's true that it would take more extraordinary evidence to convince sceptics of an extraordinary claim than it would take for gullible and impressionable people to believe the same claim.

Belinda,

why would you equate "times past" with the medieval period?

Why is it true that "it would take more extraordinary evidence".

What examples can you cite that confirm your claim?

And what's wrong with being gullible? A great many successful people know the value of "I didn't know enough to fail".

Let's have more people gullible for success, enjoyment, creativity, growth.

Best ...
Steve

Belinda wrote: I had presumed that you wrote from the point of view of reason, not faith.

Fortunately, I have both at my disposal to inform my writing.

What in your view is the comparative moral status of the pleasure principle?

I've never heard of the pleasure principle. Perhaps you could educate me?

The Belief Doctor wrote:
Belinda,

why would you equate "times past" with the medieval period?

Why is it true that "it would take more extraordinary evidence".

What examples can you cite that confirm your claim?

And what's wrong with being gullible? A great many successful people know the value of "I didn't know enough to fail".

Let's have more people gullible for success, enjoyment, creativity, growth.

Best ...
Steve

In fact, let's have more "gullible for success".. why not?

When I was writing my first book Be and Become (for which I received some wonderful, exceptional reviews), a 'friend' asked what I was currently doing (upon meeting her after not having spoken to her for a few months).

I replied, "writing a book".
She replied "about what".
"Oh, about quantum physics, and success".
she replied, "you can't do that, you're not a physicist, nor any great success".
I replied, "you're right, but I'll do it anyway".

And thereby the wonderful result (as evidenced by the reviews) was achieved.

Let's have more people who are "gullible for success" along with "gullible for health and wellbeing."

At least until we learn enough to fail in those endeavours.



blessings
Steve

The Belief Doctor wrote: Let's have more "gullible for success" along with "gullible for health and wellbeing."

Heh. Most of the greatest successes in my life came after I stopped telling myself what wasn't possible, what didn't make sense, what couldn't possibly work out, and what wasn't logical.

Meleagar wrote:

The Belief Doctor wrote: Let's have more "gullible for success" along with "gullible for health and wellbeing."

Heh. Most of the greatest successes in my life came after I stopped telling myself what wasn't possible, what didn't make sense, what couldn't possibly work out, and what wasn't logical.

I love this. If it wasn't for Belinda (thank you!) I wouldn't have thought of this "gullible for success" approach. I just did a google search, and there were no responses to 'gullible for success'.

There you go. It started right here on the philosophers forum.

Thanks to all for that.

Yes, let's also have "gullible for health and wellbeing" ... at least until we learn and accept what modern medicine says -- that we have to have bits and pieces cut out of our bodies, or we need to stay unwell and dis-eased, or that we have something that is 'incurable' ...

By all means, call me gullible.

Cheers,
Steve

update: As a direct result of this forum, I've posted this on the Belief Institute website (Gullible? Yes please!).

Sincere thanks and good wishes to all here!

Due to new-member restrictions, I'm unable to provide the actual web address. It is beliefinstitute*com/blog/belief-doctor/gullible-yes-please (replace the * with dot). If someone else wished to put the link in their post, much appreciated.

The Belief Doctor you sound and read exactly like Meleagar or is this just another happy coincidence? I strongly advise you to know the meaning of a word before shouting from the rooftops how happy you are to be it.

gullible - naive and easily deceived or tricked;

Ah the penny has dropped, I just read and bolded the rest of what you have to promote [or is this called spamming?]


The Belief Doctor wrote

I replied, "writing a book".
She replied "about what".
"Oh, about quantum physics, and success".
she replied, "you can't do that, you're not a physicist, nor any great success".
I replied, "you're right, but I'll do it anyway".

And thereby the wonderful result (as evidenced by the reviews) was achieved.

I see, so you sell your books and profit from the gullible, no wonder you shout be gullible to gain people who buy them and you further confess your admitted deceptions of the success you assert but can`t show evidence for.. [confessing your assertions without you having any knowledge or science backround or in fact any truth] it will somehow come to them! I would not call what you sell fairytales, as its deceptive, fairy tales are called fairytales, you jump on science and QM and create a fairytale claiming it has science`s backing and is truth!! thats deception of the gullible and ignorant on a larger scale and I call it morally contemptable. Not that I take you personally, like Belinda I read the truth between the lines of rhetoric you and Meleagar write. Often contradicting yourselves and your premises. I say this only in fairness to those gullible enough to be duped by your claims. You ought to try to get a more authentic line of income one that takes effort and accomplishment like the real material people Meleagar knocks on this thread people have and they enjoy the fruits of their honest days work. But then here is my question for you, when is an ought an is?


Truthfulness. He will never willingly tolerate an untruth, but will hate it as much as he loves truth... And is there anything more closely connected with wisdom than truth? Plato

Abe has nailed it down again.

Abacab wrote:
I see, so you sell your books and profit from the gullible, no wonder you shout be gullible to gain people who buy them and you further confess your admitted deceptions of the success you assert but can`t show evidence for.. [confessing your assertions without you having any knowledge or science backround or in fact any truth] it will somehow come to them! I would not call what you sell fairytales, as its deceptive, fairy tales are called fairytales, you jump on science and QM and create a fairytale claiming it has science`s backing and is truth!! thats deception of the gullible and ignorant on a larger scale and I call it morally contemptable. Not that I take you personally, like Belinda I read the truth between the lines of rhetoric you and Meleagar write. Often contradicting yourselves and your premises. I say this only in fairness to those gullible enough to be duped by your claims. You ought to try to get a more authentic line of income one that takes effort and accomplishment like the real material people Meleagar knocks on this thread people have and they enjoy the fruits of their honest days work. But then here is my question for you, when is an ought an is?


Truthfulness. He will never willingly tolerate an untruth, but will hate it as much as he loves truth... And is there anything more closely connected with wisdom than truth? Plato

Crikey, cooee cobber, "morally contemptable'? For inciting or enticing people to enjoy success, health and wellbeing? Guilty! as charged ("Zeek, get da shotgun").

Dear me, "without you having any knowledge or science backround or in fact any truth" Yep, guilty as charged ... absolutely no knowledge (e.g. of how to type or spell .. irony intended), no science background, guilty again (well, if you ignore my stint at one of Australia's leading universities, studying higher-level physics).

Besides, assume (you know, make an ...,) anyway assume I know nuffin about anyfing.

No worries! I just get really smart people to say wonderful things about my work, so I don't need to learn lots of things, or remember them (which requires good honest hard work. boring) - (see /reviews section of the website).

All in all, yes, I'm guilty and gullible.

Golly. Geewhiz. Goodness gracious. Gotta go! Goodbye

TBD wrote

she replied, "you can't do that, you're not a physicist, nor any great success".
I replied, "you're right, but I'll do it anyway".

TBD wrote

well, if you ignore my stint at one of Australia's leading universities, studying higher-level physics)

So in one post you`re not a physicist, in the next you studied higher level physics..give us all a break! its transparent you double talk here!

Vulcanised wrote:TBD wrote

she replied, "you can't do that, you're not a physicist, nor any great success".
I replied, "you're right, but I'll do it anyway".

TBD wrote

well, if you ignore my stint at one of Australia's leading universities, studying higher-level physics)

So in one post you`re not a physicist, in the next you studied higher level physics..give us all a break! its transparent you double talk here!

Double-crikey.

Actually I have a degree of triple talk (I skip boring double talk. too easy - instead preferring what otherwise might be called triple-entendres, but I digress).

When does studying equate to graduating?

I skipped outa uni - it didn't hold my interest. Couldn't keep (or much start), going to lectures (or tutorials).

Guilty, as before.

Sad.

TBD wrote

I skipped outa uni - it didn't hold my interest. Couldn't keep (or much start), going to lectures (or tutorials)Guilty, .

Thanks for proving Abes point

Vulcanised wrote:TBD wrote

I skipped outa uni - it didn't hold my interest. Couldn't keep (or much start), going to lectures (or tutorials)Guilty, .

Thanks for proving Abes point

Uhm, working here ... what's a word starting with g, for 'I ain't got a clue what ya'll talking about'?

Proved what point?

update: silly me. I think I get it. Undergraduate = dill, dolt, dummkopf. Graduate = authority, smart, right.

Question: is an undergraduate who's say 98% to getting a degree still a dill, a dolt?

What about 99.9999% (the day before graduation?), or 5 minutes before?

Is there a machine in the vice-chancellor's office that goes 'ding' when someone becomes a graduate, so that we then know they're really really smart?

That would be neat, as. Every office, university and hospital should have one of those machines. Then we'd know who to follow, sorry obey, damn, learn from.

'Ding' ... I think I've got it now.

TBD wrote

Is there a machine in the vice-chancellors office that goes 'ding' when someone becomes a graduate, so that we then know they're really really smart?

That would be neat, as. Every office, university and hospital should have one of those machines. Then we'd know who to follow, sorry obey, damn, learn from.

'Ding' ...

Tell me how long have you and Meleagar been robots? only us realist`s speak in human terms with human speech, try it sometime. You asked humans about aliens? your speech sound`s like one its alien speak to me. No human speaks like you do selling their myth as truth. Abes point was not just about you being unqualified, the thrust was you admit no evidence on what you sell [preach] to the gullible, which is deception.

Meleagar wrote

Generally, most of the automatons in my experience provide excellent support for my experience - such as, they fix my car, do the verious other jobs at work that give my job valuable context and support, fill up the grocery bins at the market with food, come out and exterminate pests or perform other functions on my house

Those automatons you disassociate from are humans to those of us who are born human not robots and not automatons, your alien robotic speech is nothing but proving you are subhuman to call your fellow men automatons. You go to prove my thoughts on regress, only regressive subhumans still reside in their own platos cave, and insinuate those that don`t are automatons.