I guess you're right. But, I don't stop to analyze my philosophy when I do things. I just do them. Maybe later on I'll stop and think about the reasons why.
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:23 AM, allan deheretic <[email protected]>wrote: > Strange over that last forty years plus I have had just > the opposite experience. How you deal with your everyday life is your > real philosophy. > Allan > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Chuck Bowling < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 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. ;) >> >> >> >> > > > -- > ( > ) > I_D Allan > > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, > >
