First, I am not so intelligent, so I will not try to compete with the sages.
But, be that said, there is a case to be made for the extreme esoteric banter that philosophy invests itself with. I am smart enough to know that, after printing the previous discussion (prior to my query for Andy K) and studying it for about two hours at night, I found myself rather fascinated with the possibilities which mortals usually restrict themselves from even having to entertain the chance of occurring, or even of allowing the chance of being in existence. There really is a reason to question the forms which 'reality' (derived from the 'real', guided by our particular way of translating our perception of logic) can take. It's when philosophers become arrogant and condescending (NOT applicable to Andy K here) that they become a de facto threat to many of the 'lesser' amongst us because they seem to be taking over our comfort zones.
The following morning after such study my mind felt a bit more enlightened and less burdened with the 'semiotic' restriction of what I was 'permitted' to believe. This discussion, pro or con, adds to our structured knowledge but leaves us somewhat disquieted with the fact that what we have determined as 'logic' just might not be the full and complete story. Humans like final resolution. That might yet be unachievable. - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 02-04-2013 at 09:59 AM. Click to view previous post history.