Originally posted by DoctorScribblesInteresting that for you, if something was read or heard elsewhere, it shouldn't be learned and/or repeated.
Yes, that would make it appear much less like something you read in some fundamentalist site's FAQ, or perhaps heard in the chorus of some atrocious Christian rock song.
The implication of that is that to you, one's own original thought is more important than what one learns from others.
That, my friend, leads to both ignorance and pride.
Originally posted by aspviper666aspviper666: "true satanism worships the self and self indulence"
yes
satanism is a theistic belief system
true satanism worships the self and self indulence
more than the worshipping of satan
but then there are different sects of satanism
but all believe in a supreme being(satan)
Self-indulgence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indulgence of one's appetites, desires, or inclinations; -- the opposite of self-restraint, and self-denial.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWell, if my weakness is implication, I guess yours is comprehension.
You wouldn't know an implication if it was served to you at communion.
One cannot have understanding without original thought.
I didn't criticize original thought anywhere in my post. I criticized throwing out non-original thoughts.
Prerequisite for logic: comprehension.
1 edit
Originally posted by joelekWhere are they teaching these sorts of non sequiturs as reasoning?
Interesting that for you, if something was read or heard elsewhere, it shouldn't be learned and/or repeated.
The implication of that is that to you, one's own original thought is more important than what one learns from others.
That, my friend, leads to both ignorance and pride.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Yes, that would make it appear much less like something you read in some fundamentalist site's FAQ, or perhaps heard in the chorus of some atrocious Christian rock song.
How does this statement imply that "one's own original thought is more important than what one learns from others?" It doesn't. However, it does imply that "fundamentalist site's FAQs" and "atrocious Christian rock songs" are dissimilar to the "appearance of intellect." Perhaps, the good doctor was reminding us that many fundamentalist websites and xtian rock are so devoid of intelligence as to lack even the illusion of intellect. But, no where in his statement is the sort of epistemological arrogance you imagine there.
One is tempted to observe that the pride and arrogance that produces ignorance may rest secure in the life of the accuser.
Originally posted by joelekOriginal thought generally requires a certain amount of ignorance. This possibly explains why, for example, the most original work in scientific fields tends to be done by relatively inexperienced people, or people in scientifically inexperienced cultures.
Wrong. Original thought leads to the things you mention. Throwing out others' thoughts because they're not original leads to what I mention.
(By 'relatively inexperienced', I mean that if, say, a PhD student and her advisor are equally insightful people, by some measure of insightfulness, then she is probably more likely to come up with an original idea. I don't mean that, say, a person ignorant of maths is more likely to prove the Riemann Hypothesis than a number theorist is.)
Originally posted by WulebgrAccording to my understanding (and maybe I totally missed his point),
Where are they teaching these sorts of non-sequiturs as reasoning?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
[b]Yes, that would make it appear much less like something you read in some fundamentalist site's FAQ, or perhaps heard in the chorus of some atrocious Christian rock song.
How does this statement imply that "one's own original thought ...[text shortened]... that the pride and arrogance that produces ignorance may rest secure in the life of the accuser.[/b]
"The good doctor's" criticism was that my original post sounded like it was taken from a fundamentalist FAQ or a Christian rock song (and was therefore a trite slogan).
And it's non sequitur, without a hyphen.
Originally posted by royalchickenDoes this mean there is still hope for Dr.S ?
Original thought generally requires a certain amount of ignorance. This possibly explains why, for example, the most original work in scientific fields tends to be done by relatively inexperienced people, or people in scientifically inexperienced cultures.
(By 'relatively inexperienced', I mean that if, say, a PhD student and her advisor are equal ...[text shortened]... son ignorant of maths is more likely to prove the Riemann Hypothesis than a number theorist is.)