From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Apr 06 2005 - 21:34:09 BST
Robin,
First I want to apologize....the question about perennial philosophy was not directed to you (open question to anybody who uses that term). I should have done that in a different post.
You ask "Would you say either role (philosophologer or philosopher) is moraly better
than the other, and on which basis?" Originally I thought that philosophy role is morally better because of higher intellectual quality but now that I don't feel the two completely untangled it is hard to answer this question. I was looking for somebody to explain the distinction to me so can't really answers questions abou thte the difference between the two.
Erin
Robin Brouwer <rsbrouwer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>From: Erin
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Contradictions
>Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Robin, David,
>
>Thank you for your thoughts. I had the original/creative vs static/others
>thoughts distinction down but where the line starts to blur is more
>applying it to examples. Maybe if you could apply your ideas using
>specific examples I would better understand where you think the line is
>drawn at. When you talk about his or her "truth" that sounds very
>postmodern to me and that is no no around here....so we want "original"
>thinking without the subjectivity of postmodernism
>
>Another thing I would like to explain is the meaning of perennial
>philosophy. I have looked it up in the dictionary but am wondering if you
>have "expanded" the definition to where it is no longer recognizable (like
>empirical). The dictionary defintion I am going by is
>
>per·en·ni·al
>
> Appearing again and again; recurrent. See Synonyms at continual.
>
>
>
>
>With the idea of perennial philosophy where is the "original"
>thoughts---the "clear" line between philosophy and philosophology?
>
>Erin
>
Erin,
To be honest my knowledge of postmodernism is close to none, however my
choice of words might have led you to believe so.
When speaking of truths I was rather using them as a Sophist would, when
using truth I might also speak of someone's belief or philosophy. Any
existing philosophy would be someone's truth. I might not have chosen my
words very well, but in my opinion an existing philosophy (or truth) is
indeed a static patern, when a person uses a different static patern (or
different philosophy (or truth)) to prove the other wrong then I would call
it a philosophologer.
However if he uses his own dynamic/creative beliefs and experiences to
create a new philosophy or to identify with an existing one, I would call
him a philosopher.
This was my opinion and by writing it down I can now clearly see the
contradiction.
Instead of writing down my blurry ideas at this time, I would rather ask a
question.
Would you say either role (philosophologer or philosopher) is moraly better
than the other, and on which basis?
Robin.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger overal en altijd beschikbaar http://webmessenger.msn.com/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 06 2005 - 21:37:21 BST