Religions > Atheism > Intellectual poseur spouts quasi-religious incoherance to a fawning young audience.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Russell" |
| Date: |
11 Dec 2005 10:17:39 AM |
| Object: |
Intellectual poseur spouts quasi-religious incoherance to a fawning young audience. |
Like all good evangelists Harold Pinter opened his Nobel prize
acceptance speech with a classic brainwashing trick:
"In 1958 I wrote the following:
'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is
unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not
necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.'
I believe that these assertions still make sense."[/I]
People like that should have to register.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Intellectual poseur spouts quasi-religious incoherance to a fawning young audience. |
11 Dec 2005 11:04:02 AM |
|
|
On 11 Dec 2005 08:17:39 -0800, "Russell" <greenonions.blue@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Like all good evangelists Harold Pinter opened his Nobel prize
acceptance speech with a classic brainwashing trick:
"In 1958 I wrote the following:
'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is
unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not
necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.'
I believe that these assertions still make sense."[/I]
People like that should have to register.
Just out of curiosity, what do you make of quantum computing? You know, that
thing where an atom can be in both an "on" and an "off" state at the exact same
time. I assume you see a difference that makes it inapplicable to the quote
you're condemning.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
aa#88
BAAWA Knight
"The gap betwixt civility and barbarism is the width of a tooth."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Saden" |
|
| Title: Re: Intellectual poseur spouts quasi-religious incoherance to a fawningyoung audience. |
11 Dec 2005 11:58:30 AM |
|
|
Russell wrote:
Like all good evangelists Harold Pinter opened his Nobel prize
acceptance speech with a classic brainwashing trick:
"In 1958 I wrote the following:
'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is
unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not
necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.'
I believe that these assertions still make sense."[/I]
People like that should have to register.
Yes, if he really believes that, he should be forced to recite this
speech in front of oncoming traffic in the fast lane of the M1.
I think he'll find out what is real and what is not rather quickly there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "zeke" |
|
| Title: Re: Intellectual poseur spouts quasi-religious incoherance to a fawning young audience. |
11 Dec 2005 01:24:54 PM |
|
|
It's hard to believe that Harold Sphincter is a Nobel Lecturer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Intellectual poseur spouts quasi-religious incoherance to a fawning young audience. |
11 Dec 2005 03:45:43 PM |
|
|
Russell wrote:
Like all good evangelists Harold Pinter opened his Nobel prize
acceptance speech with a classic brainwashing trick:
"In 1958 I wrote the following:
'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is
unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not
necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.'
I believe that these assertions still make sense."[/I]
That is exactly the Anekantavada of the Jaina philosophy and is over
2300 years old.
Let me dig out my Indian philosophy book.
Anekantevada, the Jaina metaphyical doctrine of the "manysideness of
reality"
1. Somehow a thing is.
2. Somehow a thing is not.
3. Somehow a thing both is and is not.
4. Somehow it is indescribable.
5. Somehow it is and is indescribable.
6. Somehow it is not and is indescribable.
7. Somehow it is, is not, and is indescribable.
People like that should have to register.
Perhaps it makes no sense in the manner you read it, but it is
essentially a statement of relativism... that no absolute negation or
affirmation is possible about anything.
People often make the mistake that there is an inherent contradiction
in that stance, but that is actually incorrect.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
