On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:30 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote:
> Your analogy between philosophy and bubble gum, as clever as it is, > isn’t clear to me when ‘nutritional value’ is mentioned. No doubt you > have a personal meaning to this phrase; however, it is opaque to me. > If you wish to expand, that would be great! > By 'nutritional value' I'm referring to the application of philosophy to everyday living. When I'm working or playing (if you exclude discussion on this group) I have no use for philosophy. It doesn't help me complete a project or get my RC heli in the air. > Hopefully your question about having ‘a clear view’ on materiality and > philosophy is meant to be humor…or at least mere rhetoric. Most people > can have a clear view of different things/notions whether they are > similar, of the same nature, a subset of the other or countless other > qualities that in fact do not hinder having a discriminating mind. > The issue is the stance that you appear to require from me. You want me to take a stance on either philosophy or materialism. This makes no sense to me. > As to what you should take a ‘clear stance on’, I’ll answer: Anything > you are discussing here…if possible. Perhaps it isn’t possible on > occasion. > > From the description of the Minds Eye Group: > “A Forum to RATIONALLY express your ideas on: Religion, Philosophy, > Literature, the Fine Arts, etc…” > > If you don’t wish to present cogent discussion, OK. I just thought you > were implying you had some apparently different views and wished to > express them. > Ah. Insults. Thank you. This makes the discussion much more clear for me. I chose to ignore the condescension but one can only ignore so much can't one? I guess this conversation is over. ;)
