Wisdom Lovers United (or untied)

[Key]

7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I try to be reasonable.  I don't always succeed, but I try.

 

 

Now, now, be reasonable. You don't always fail, either. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

41 minutes ago, Key said:

Now, now, be reasonable. You don't always fail, either. 

 

 

True.  "You can't lose them all."  

[RabbiO]

On January 29, 2018 at 12:40 AM, micha_el said:

I cant speak for other people but I myself would much appreciate if you directed your commentary toward the original post rather than at me.

Let me welcome you to the forum. 

 

You don't seem to understand that on this forum, as well as other forums, perhaps most forums, it is not uncommon for conversations, in response to comments, to tackle subject matter some what different than the original subject of a thread. These, for want of a better term, digressions are not hijackings of a thread, they are simply the natural progression of a discussion.

 

You also need to understand, if you do not already, that these conversations are not private. If you respond to a post by Larry,  then Harry and Barry have a right to post responses to your post.

 

If you are uncomfortable to the freewheeling nature of this forum, the forum may not be the best fit for you. However, I would encourage you to stay and participate and get to know the other members.

[micha_el]

you "wise and learned gentlemen" can have your forums to yourselves

[RabbiO]

3 hours ago, micha_el said:

you "wise and learned gentlemen" can have your forums to yourselves

I would suggest you brew yourself a nice cup of hot tea and then enjoy it with a fresh prune danish. That should calm you down by the time you're finished and we can try to have a conversation. It's highly unusual for someone with only 9 posts on the forum to feel such anger that they are ready to just walk away.

 

Maybe it would help if you told us a bit more about yourself, what attracted you to the forum, and what you were seeking to accomplish as a member here.

[Pastor Dave]

9 hours ago, RabbiO said:

I would suggest you brew yourself a nice cup of hot tea and then enjoy it with a fresh prune danish. That should calm you down by the time you're finished and we can try to have a conversation. It's highly unusual for someone with only 9 posts on the forum to feel such anger that they are ready to just walk away.

 

Maybe it would help if you told us a bit more about yourself, what attracted you to the forum, and what you were seeking to accomplish as a member here.

Good advise from our respected Rabbi.

We may not agree with everything everyone else here says, but we do seem to respect each others right to have a differing opinion.

Oh, it seems a lot of topics wander off of the subject of the OP. That's just the way discussions go.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Pastor Dave

[Pastor Dave]

9 hours ago, RabbiO said:

 

Sorry, it double posted.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Pastor Dave

[mererdog]

So, have you learned anything useful, Von?

[VonNoble]

On 2/4/2018 at 9:01 AM, mererdog said:

So, have you learned anything useful, Von?

 

Yes.  i always learn things from the FORUM contributors.  But more to your point - I have I have even learned one or two items in Philosophy class.   

 

I doubt (at this moment) I will take more than one Philosophy class.   As interesting as it is (and it is) - I am afraid I can quickly understand why philosophers are not the highest paid people on the corporate ladder.   That is not intended as an insult or to be demeaning but rather it exposes a weakness in my thinking.    As a company executive - I  set pay scales based on production.  Those 'making" something, improving something in some measurable way earned more dollars than those who contributed to intangible improvements.    The Board of directors understood and valued numbers and tangible proof.   That was the directive I received and implemented. 

 

That may not be the BEST system.   But it was the framework of the company I worked for...and most others that ever employed me.

As long as productivity (a tangible) is rated higher than an intangible I am guessing it will remain that way. 

 

To the point of Philosophy per se - what I have gathered so far is that there is a nifty set of tools for comparing the relationship between things.  There are several ways to frame thoughts to understand them more clearly.  Definitions can be manipulated to clarify (or confuse) a point of view if you are deft and practiced with these tools.   It is all a bit confusing but I suspect will be less so as we move more deeply into actually putting the tools into practice.   

 

Some of my fellow students are intelligent but not too disciplined.  Some are outrageous and entertaining (deliberately and not so much on purpose) - and my professor is enthused about the topic.   She is frustrated by the class often.  But she comes in ready to try again to coach us into understanding ...so all in all - I am happy I am IN the class.    I am learning to widen some parts of my thinking and close up big gaps in logic that I am all too comfortable with, etc. 

 

Thanks for asking.  I am a work in progress ESPECIALLY in these early days of this class. 

 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I find philosophy more interesting as an idea than as a practice.  As an idea, philosophy is great.  In practice, it makes me want to run for the door.  There is nothing quite like a room full of intelligent, intellectual old men, arguing about -- "What is the good life?".  I can't stand it.  I'm also less than thrilled by heavy discussions about "First Cause" or the "Nature of Reality" or "The existence of God."  In general, the big questions.  Like -- "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  I can't do it any more.  

 

When I was younger, I was into this stuff.  Now, it just drives me crazy.  I must admit, it's a shorted drive than it used to be.   

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, VonNoble said:

That may not be the BEST system.   But it was the framework of the company I worked for...and most others that ever employed me.

As long as productivity (a tangible) is rated higher than an intangible I am guessing it will remain that way. 

An economics professor convinced me that we focus on what we can measure because it gives us a sense of control, even though the things we can't measure are what ultimately determine our outcomes. This is a minority opinion among economists, but his arguments rang true for me. And its not too surprising that it is a minority opinion, given that most economists make a living by convincing companies to buy formulas and lists of stats...

[VonNoble]

On 2/5/2018 at 2:27 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I find philosophy more interesting as an idea than as a practice.  As an idea, philosophy is great.  In practice, it makes me want to run for the door.  There is nothing quite like a room full of intelligent, intellectual old men, arguing about -- "What is the good life?".  I can't stand it.  I'm also less than thrilled by heavy discussions about "First Cause" or the "Nature of Reality" or "The existence of God."  In general, the big questions.  Like -- "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  I can't do it any more.  

 

When I was younger, I was into this stuff.  Now, it just drives me crazy.  I must admit, it's a shorted drive than it used to be.   

You CERTAINLY CAPTURED the essence of the class so far 

 

So far it is a “wishful thinking” presentation that discusses reality.    Applying the thoughts bantered about beyond discussing them will be interesting to observe.

 

Doing every part of this class “as a team” is proving to be...in some ways a more valuable lesson.   UNLIKE LAST SEMESTER ...all team assignments are done in CLASS.     A LARGE portion of our grade hinges on the team’s effort.   We sort of sink or swim together. 

 

You can can pass on individual points alone .... but the path to an “A” clearly will require the team to cooperate.  

 

Which is forcing very different points of view to work to a common goal.  That dynamic is fascinating.   Uncomfortable for all of us.... but fascinating.

 

von

[VonNoble]

On 2/5/2018 at 3:26 PM, mererdog said:

An economics professor convinced me that we focus on what we can measure because it gives us a sense of control, even though the things we can't measure are what ultimately determine our outcomes. This is a minority opinion among economists, but his arguments rang true for me. And its not too surprising that it is a minority opinion, given that most economists make a living by convincing companies to buy formulas and lists of stats...

Thanks for sharing that.  The economics professor’s observations ring true for me as well.     AS DO YOURS.    

von

[Key]

8 hours ago, VonNoble said:

You CERTAINLY CAPTURED the essence of the class so far 

 

So far it is a “wishful thinking” presentation that discusses reality.    Applying the thoughts bantered about beyond discussing them will be interesting to observe.

 

Doing every part of this class “as a team” is proving to be...in some ways a more valuable lesson.   UNLIKE LAST SEMESTER ...all team assignments are done in CLASS.     A LARGE portion of our grade hinges on the team’s effort.   We sort of sink or swim together. 

 

You can can pass on individual points alone .... but the path to an “A” clearly will require the team to cooperate.  

 

Which is forcing very different points of view to work to a common goal.  That dynamic is fascinating.   Uncomfortable for all of us.... but fascinating.

 

von

If anything for your fellow students to learn, it is the concept of open thought to consider very different points of view to arrive at a conclusion or possible avenues to one. Even while a philosophers view may be argued, oftentimes their view does hold a ring of truth to them which makes them interesting to ponder.

I find this valuable to understand in debate and teamwork. So, kudos to you on your discovery of this.

[VonNoble]

23 hours ago, Key said:

If anything for your fellow students to learn, it is the concept of open thought to consider very different points of view to arrive at a conclusion or possible avenues to one. Even while a philosophers view may be argued, oftentimes their view does hold a ring of truth to them which makes them interesting to ponder.

I find this valuable to understand in debate and teamwork. So, kudos to you on your discovery of this.

Thx...I am struggling to CLEARLY understand the tool of necessary and sufficient....

 

Every time I think I have it.... the next example provided fuzzes things up....my fellow students in my group seem equally confused so I guess this part is just “a process” till we all sort it out mentally.

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

46 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

Thx...I am struggling to CLEARLY understand the tool of necessary and sufficient....

 

Every time I think I have it.... the next example provided fuzzes things up....my fellow students in my group seem equally confused so I guess this part is just “a process” till we all sort it out mentally.

von

 

It might help to think in concrete rather than abstract terms.  I'm thinking of the police doctrine of excessive force.  Consider two examples.

 

One.  The police show up to discover a drunk trying to break into a liquor store.  He has cracked the plate glass window.  He's more pathetic than dangerous.  There is no need to hurt him, or even threaten him with harm.  He is quickly subdued and placed in the back of the police car for processing.

 

Two.  The police show up at an armed bank robbery in process.  One of the robbers exits the bank and shoots at the first police officer to arrive at the scene.  He refuses to drop his weapon.  The police will shoot back.  They use their side arms.  They do not use a rocket launcher.  

 

Another example.  A deer hunter normally goes hunting with a sport rifle.  Not an AK-47.

 

There is necessary.  There is sufficient.  There is excessive.  

 

 

 

 

[mererdog]

2 hours ago, VonNoble said:

Thx...I am struggling to CLEARLY understand the tool of necessary and sufficient....

 

Every time I think I have it.... the next example provided fuzzes things up....my fellow students in my group seem equally confused so I guess this part is just “a process” till we all sort it out mentally.

von

It sometimes works better if you focus on what isn't, rather than what is-

 

Water is not sufficient for human life, because we die if we don't eat food.

Meat is not necessary for human life, because we can survive on other food.

 

Another tack-

Practice is necessary to win gold in the Olympics. No one wins gold who did not practice.

Practice is not sufficient to win gold at the Olympics. The guy who wins silver also practiced, but the guy who won gold had other factors in his favor, in addition to the practice.

 

 

Bear in mind that beyond the very basic and the very imaginary, it can be almost impossible to tell what is necessary or sufficient. You are almost always going to miss a factor hiding in the giant ball of interactions we call the universe. Life is risk.

[VonNoble]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

It might help to think in concrete rather than abstract terms.  I'm thinking of the police doctrine of excessive force.  Consider two examples.

 

One.  The police show up to discover a drunk trying to break into a liquor store.  He has cracked the plate glass window.  He's more pathetic than dangerous.  There is no need to hurt him, or even threaten him with harm.  He is quickly subdued and placed in the back of the police car for processing.

 

Two.  The police show up at an armed bank robbery in process.  One of the robbers exits the bank and shoots at the first police officer to arrive at the scene.  He refuses to drop his weapon.  The police will shoot back.  They use their side arms.  They do not use a rocket launcher.  

 

Another example.  A deer hunter normally goes hunting with a sport rifle.  Not an AK-47.

 

There is necessary.  There is sufficient.  There is excessive.  

 

 

 

 

Thank you....I KNOW I have to know this... but when they assign it as a mathematical formula with p and q bouncing around the sentences it muddles it a bit.    One sentence used a double negative ....with all the p and q stuff and it took me awhile (too long) to sort it out (THAT quiz was timed)

 

I do appreciate thd assist.

von

[VonNoble]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

It sometimes works better if you focus on what isn't, rather than what is-

 

Water is not sufficient for human life, because we die if we don't eat food.

Meat is not necessary for human life, because we can survive on other food.

 

Another tack-

Practice is necessary to win gold in the Olympics. No one wins gold who did not practice.

Practice is not sufficient to win gold at the Olympics. The guy who wins silver also practiced, but the guy who won gold had other factors in his favor, in addition to the practice.

 

 

Bear in mind that beyond the very basic and the very imaginary, it can be almost impossible to tell what is necessary or sufficient. You are almost always going to miss a factor hiding in the giant ball of interactions we call the universe. Life is risk.

Actually these examples ARE helpful...I am going on line to take a practice test in a short while.... maybe it will build my confidence.

 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

Thank you....I KNOW I have to know this... but when they assign it as a mathematical formula with p and q bouncing around the sentences it muddles it a bit.    One sentence used a double negative ....with all the p and q stuff and it took me awhile (too long) to sort it out (THAT quiz was timed)

 

I do appreciate thd assist.

von

 

 

You have my sympathies.  I had an awful time with the formulas.  That was no fun at all.