Posts: 3318
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 01, 2010 12:16 PM         

---

.

IP: Logged

Posts: 4827
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 01, 2010 01:46 PM         

---

it is much easier(to hear one's inner voice) if one speaks for oneself and not the population at large....how do you know, for instance, that truth is not a priority for most people?

IP: Logged

Posts: 3318
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 02, 2010 07:57 AM         

---

.

IP: Logged

Posts: 4827
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 02, 2010 10:07 AM         

---

okay steve, i give up. i also have an intimate relationship with the outer planets and a disinclination to make statements that lump the majority of individuals into a single body....so that was a philosophically oriented question but since you insist on taking everything i say to the personal, i will leave you to your musings. but consider this...if the premise on which you build your theory is based on an assumption what does that do to the theory?

you take care yourself

IP: Logged

Posts: 3318
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 02, 2010 10:26 AM         

---

It's as personal as it is,
and as impersonal as it is.
I answered your question,
fairly thoroughly.

Big thinkers have always "lumped"
the majority into a single body, kat.
That's why we call them "the majority"!

And that's par for the philosophy course;
we're not looking into a microscope
but a telescope, here.

My theory is not remotely based
on the statement you isolated.

If anything, the statement follows
from the numerous other observations
and reflections which you overlooked, --
maybe because you found no fault with them.

I'd have to see your chart to approximate
the extent of your involvement with the outer
planetary energies; suffice to say that
even jwhop has Sun/Pluto in Leo.

peace

IP: Logged

Posts: 3557
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 02, 2010 12:37 PM         

---

I agree with Hume. I take the point about having to needlessly explain things into minutae, however, if something is not rational or practical superficially then some degree of explanation is in order, right? Some debate is warranted.

quote:

---

The real is-ought problem, as I see it, has more to do with the assumption that what ought to be ought already to be!

---

But all of life is experimentation. We can say that something ought to be, but without having practiced it (and having seen the results) we can't insist that it ought to be. We can believe with relative certainty that things will never be ideal.

IP: Logged

Posts: 3318
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 02, 2010 09:44 PM         

---

I dont think the author is necessarily under an obligation to explain every use of the word "ought". There's so much that's understood or left unsaid in any piece of writing. A writer can't hope to account for every proposition. Certainly, Hume or anyone is free to ask questions and seek clarity for themselves, though. But to expect it is asking too much, I think.

IP: Logged

Posts: 4827
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 03, 2010 01:01 PM         

---

no you don't have to see my chart. i doubt you can read it properly anyway since you contend that jwhop has sun/pluto - true they are in the same sign in his chart but at opposite ends (unless the birthdata i have for him is false). perhaps you could take the clues i've given and construct mine yourself as i did jwhop's..bang on as it happened...

anyway valus i forgive you since you obviously have no idea what you do. peace out.

IP: Logged

Posts: 3318
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 04, 2010 02:13 AM         

---

My mistake, kat. I was told he had Sun/Pluto.
I'm sure you never believed anything you were told.

Once again, you focus on the smallest crack
and give no thought to the greater bulk of my post.
Always an easy out. Why do you bother?

IP: Logged