| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"whooo" |
| Date: |
25 Aug 2005 10:12:28 AM |
| Object: |
Is there... |
....really no such thing as a stupid question? Has anyone ever proved
that there is no such thing as a stupid question?
TIA
.
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there... |
31 Aug 2005 12:07:00 AM |
|
|
"whooo" <whooo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wdlPe.473$p4.81@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
...really no such thing as a stupid question? Has anyone ever proved that
there is no such thing as a stupid question?
TIA
For a salient being to have enough control to manipulate atoms to vibrate in
a specific sequence by slapping sheets of meat together, whereby another
being can be cognisant of your intention hardly deserves the term "stupid"
whatever is being communicated.
To quote a line from "A Fish Called Wander"..."that makes stupid sound
stupid".
Unstupid Brian Of Life :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BuddhaThu" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there... |
27 Aug 2005 12:57:30 PM |
|
|
I don't know if there is such a thing as a "stupid question." But
there are questions that make me go, huh?
Take for instance the following I took from a freshman utterance.
"What is?"
Ok...
It took me all last night and all today to grammar critique this one. I
am not kidding. :-(
In order to get good answers, you must be clear in your intentions of
the question. I cannot get the intentions of this.
One of the lessons of grammar critique is not to deride issues like
this
But to think of yourself as a space alien, -- (some of us can do that
very easily ;-) -- and imagine what he would see.
(It is one of the reasons why the analytic tradition lost. They deride
but could not give good arguments. Don't do this people. You will not
win.)
Ok... Let us begin...
"What is?"
The specimen seems like an interrogative with a derivative verb "to
be."
It could be a noun/verb variety like "being", when left to itself
to denote a human "being." Leibniz called it by a different name
"issing." D.Z. Phillips once asked in a derisive manner of
Leibniz, "Have you seen anything that is "issing?" I answered,
"yes", it is call a "being." ;-)
But you would need another verb "is" to make this work, as in
"What is being?" "What is running?" What is writing?"
So this is not right.
It could be a pure noun. "What house?" "What deer" "What
logic?" But this is more a mood of incredulousness, befuddlement,
skepticism or cynicism used to denote that something ought to be there,
but is not there.
It is not a true question or interrogative.
Then as I lie awake at 3AM, (yes such things do keep me up at night and
make me moody) I thought it could be related to an opposite of "what
is not."
D.Z. Phillips' negative theology built from hi existentialist take
would do this. To search for God is not in the indicative mood as in a
pocket watch, but never went further than this. (Religion Without
Explanation)
To search for God is to search for "what is not." But this is weird
to me as well. If you search and found what is not, then it is not what
you are looking for.
(This happens in a lot in metaphysics, negative theology, and confused
teenagers looking for that "hot date" who have yet to take my
grammar critique course. But be that as it may. ;-)
So one must search for ***"what is."***
But this is in the indicative statement. It is not in the
interrogative.
So for all my years, I cannot get at decoding this intention.
In order to answer the question, I must know the intention.
So I am confused. Metaphysics has won.
But as Nietzsche said, if it does not kill me, it can only make me
stronger.
So Hah!!!!
I RAGE BEFORE THE ADVANCING TIDE OF METAPHYSICS!!!!
I SAIL BRAVELY THROUGH ITS RELENTLESS GALES OF "WHAT IS?"
I LAUGH AT YOUR CERTAIN OBLIVION!!!!
AND I SAY ... foopah!
Oblivion does not exist, see prior posts. ;-)
whooo wrote:
...really no such thing as a stupid question? Has anyone ever proved
that there is no such thing as a stupid question?
TIA
.
|
|
|
| User: "BuddhaThu" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there... |
27 Aug 2005 03:35:35 PM |
|
|
Dear all,
Ok.... Kiddies... ;-)
Enough with the joking around. :-)
Let us begin with the real grammar critique.
We could see this question "What is?" as an example of a "misuse
of language" of two categories. ***Resolving and dissolving.***
Cf. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" thread under
"BuddhaThu"
We can see it as a "dissolving" issue in the following.
The "abuse of language" is that the grammar confers nothing to the
meaning of the question. The question is so confusing that we cannot
even start work with it. It cannot reach either true or false and is
forever undetermined. ;-(
Therefore, it is placed in the "undefined" basket in our three
value logic. Note: "Undefined" as discussed before with Gary
Childress exists, and it is not of the mystical variety. Cf. Gary's
posts yesterday.
Not all metaphysical speech acts belong there, as the Vienna Circle so
metaphysically asserted.
Here I say "metaphysical" because it is a blanketed assertion to
say that *all metaphysical *issues *ought not to exist.* It was their
biggest blunder. They were not quite as rigorous enough. You must be
particular in these issues.
The second way of dealing with it is the "resolving factor", i.e.
giving it a solution.
This is my cursory examination. There might be exceptions to this
critique.
"What is?" is not meant to be an interrogative mood. It is a mood
of certainty, as in "searching for what is", in contrast to "what
is not."
This is a very rare specimen of grammatical errors belonging to the
classification of mistake in moods. They exist all over the bible and I
have only studied them in the form of a grammatical reading of the
bible. I have never seen this variety before.
I hope that you enjoyed this. BT
BuddhaThu wrote:
I don't know if there is such a thing as a "stupid question." But
there are questions that make me go, huh?
Take for instance the following I took from a freshman utterance.
"What is?"
Ok...
It took me all last night and all today to grammar critique this one. I
am not kidding. :-(
In order to get good answers, you must be clear in your intentions of
the question. I cannot get the intentions of this.
One of the lessons of grammar critique is not to deride issues like
this
But to think of yourself as a space alien, -- (some of us can do that
very easily ;-) -- and imagine what he would see.
(It is one of the reasons why the analytic tradition lost. They deride
but could not give good arguments. Don't do this people. You will not
win.)
Ok... Let us begin...
"What is?"
The specimen seems like an interrogative with a derivative verb "to
be."
It could be a noun/verb variety like "being", when left to itself
to denote a human "being." Leibniz called it by a different name
"issing." D.Z. Phillips once asked in a derisive manner of
Leibniz, "Have you seen anything that is "issing?" I answered,
"yes", it is call a "being." ;-)
But you would need another verb "is" to make this work, as in
"What is being?" "What is running?" What is writing?"
So this is not right.
It could be a pure noun. "What house?" "What deer" "What
logic?" But this is more a mood of incredulousness, befuddlement,
skepticism or cynicism used to denote that something ought to be there,
but is not there.
It is not a true question or interrogative.
Then as I lie awake at 3AM, (yes such things do keep me up at night and
make me moody) I thought it could be related to an opposite of "what
is not."
D.Z. Phillips' negative theology built from hi existentialist take
would do this. To search for God is not in the indicative mood as in a
pocket watch, but never went further than this. (Religion Without
Explanation)
To search for God is to search for "what is not." But this is weird
to me as well. If you search and found what is not, then it is not what
you are looking for.
(This happens in a lot in metaphysics, negative theology, and confused
teenagers looking for that "hot date" who have yet to take my
grammar critique course. But be that as it may. ;-)
So one must search for ***"what is."***
But this is in the indicative statement. It is not in the
interrogative.
So for all my years, I cannot get at decoding this intention.
In order to answer the question, I must know the intention.
So I am confused. Metaphysics has won.
But as Nietzsche said, if it does not kill me, it can only make me
stronger.
So Hah!!!!
I RAGE BEFORE THE ADVANCING TIDE OF METAPHYSICS!!!!
I SAIL BRAVELY THROUGH ITS RELENTLESS GALES OF "WHAT IS?"
I LAUGH AT YOUR CERTAIN OBLIVION!!!!
AND I SAY ... foopah!
Oblivion does not exist, see prior posts. ;-)
whooo wrote:
...really no such thing as a stupid question? Has anyone ever proved
that there is no such thing as a stupid question?
TIA
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "27" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there... |
25 Aug 2005 11:11:29 AM |
|
|
whooo wrote:
...really no such thing as a stupid question? Has
anyone ever proved that there is no such thing as
a stupid question?
The folk philosophers sorted out this deep matter a long time ago,
rather than the intellectual elite. For instance: "Does it hurt?" or
"Why isn't the color red the color blue?" Also, if a question generates
many stupid answers, then it probably falls under suspiscion. ;-)
27
.
|
|
|
| User: "whooo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there... |
26 Aug 2005 01:41:51 AM |
|
|
27 wrote:
whooo wrote:
...really no such thing as a stupid question? Has
anyone ever proved that there is no such thing as
a stupid question?
The folk philosophers sorted out this deep matter a long time ago,
rather than the intellectual elite. For instance: "Does it hurt?" or
"Why isn't the color red the color blue?" Also, if a question generates
many stupid answers, then it probably falls under suspiscion. ;-)
27
thanks, 27.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
