Ham:
> Concerning SA's comment, I wasn't putting down
> poetry, or the joys of
> walking in the woods, for that matter. I was merely
> suggesting that poetry,
> like analogy and metaphor, do not a philosophy make. We
> have to define the
> terms of a concept and (as you've stressed) make the
> proposition logical, if
> it is to be meaningful. Poetry does not do this. It's
> created to evoke
> feelings, emotions, sentiments -- which is fine for
> "feel good" reading, but
> not for understanding.
SA: See Ham, that's what you fail to understand. Poetry can be thoughtful and
very well reasoned. It can be philosophical, ever more so at times due to it's
ability to have the reader jump to conclusions on their own, which is the whole
point of any good philosophy in my belief, for a philosophy that encourages
anybody or helps anybody think on their own and to realize life on their own
encourages people to realize true philosophy is lived, not just thought about.
A philosophy that comes closest to living out reality is a philosophy that is
closest to reality.
Ham, you seem to want to make reality, instead of finding out what IS
reality.
SA
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
