I dont care where the sound we make with our mouths connected to the definition of the word came from. It really matters little.

I submit humanity would have never survived or have nary a resemblance of what it is today if "philosophy" wasn't a natural part of it's everyday life from its very early roots; I submit that "modern" civilization was only possible due to the "philosophies" of every generation before it and anything that happened in Greece merely a continuation of the natural instinct of the human to want for meaning, higher purpose and/or understanding.

as far as me being up on ancient history, my hobby is culture and religion. I enjoy it thoroughly, read about and explore the implications of it regularly.

She also had a really hard life growing up, in case you missed that part.

I think it matters a lot. At least from my perspective. Communication is the basis for everything we hold dear in Modern Civilization and if you think so little of it perhaps we should end this conversation.

Actually Greece was the first western culture to define and personify the ideal of philosophy according to western thought. As such it was not a continuation but a beginning. What came before was superstition and religious idealism. It was only with the advanced state of the Greek Society that we saw men begin to question themselves and thier place within the cosmos irregardless of gods and superstition.

In other words you really do not know much about ancient civilizations beyond what you might have glanced at in passing??? I am not really sure how to percieve your answer to my question other than a sly dodge of the question itself through misdirection.

No I caught that part. But the ideal of "hard" is all in perception. Compared to a third world country and its children her life was probably a cake-walk

No way dude, she saw a guy get killed and stuff. Thats hardcore.

communication? what does that have to do with anything I said? are you saying the greeks invented that too? [/sarcasm]

but on your point of you and I having a constructive conversation on this issue, I think youre right in assuming we can not, not only because of your and frogs little buttfuckery at the expense of me sharing something personal after being asked to share it, but mostly because you are trying to force a very ridged definition of "philosophy", one apparently home made and very limited, where as I am looking at a broader picture, giving consideration and credence as the definition of the word "philosophy" in its pure defined states allow.

as far as my life being hard, allow me to be a hippy for a sec and share with you what I share with anyone who makes that comment to me. we all adapt to constants, my sad was no deeper than any other and if it was not for very long and besides, those who have cried hard laugh hardest.

and lets not make this seem like I was here just blurting out past, as a matter of fact I stated I didnt want to talk about it at all at first, then frog and billy mocked me for that, then I was accused of not having experienced any hardship and therefore my opinion wasnt valid, so I tried express how ignorant said offender was by offering a very small look into my past, so it just seems youre all very eager either way so suckmahdick.

more than one and three of them deserved it. :)

People who casually speak of murder have never done it, never been witness to it, and never been touched by it.

Either that or they're genuinely psychotic, but those are quite rare.

who says it was murder?

I am quite glad you added the sarcasm bit at the end of that.

I had nothing to do with the conversation before the point I entered to rebuke your definition of philosophy. As such whatever he said in reply to me I just bantered with and in no way meant anything more than what was said at face value. If you wish to prescribe more to what I said that is your right and also your consequence.



THAT was why I presupposed that we could never have communication. Because you feel that definitions matter little as do origins of words. As such anything I say will be worthless.




My "rigid" definition of western philisophical thought seems to match the overwhelming majority of historians and modern day philosophers who share the same ideal that I do--- IE that Greece and the people there were the first to utilize philosophical thought. It is no fault of my own that you disagree with that completely historical "fact".



I will ignore that entire thought because it seems as if you just kind of threw that together in an instant for some sort of self-gratifying moment in the sun.

Everyones opinion is valid unless you question your own opinion. In order to feel as if yours was not valid due to another saying it is not is a cop out.
You offered up your past. Regardless of why you did do it. No one is to blame for that but yourself.
Though I have yet to care about your past or EVEN use it against you in any way and question why you even used that in a reply to me. Unless you WANT me to regard your past in regarding your opinion/ which even if shoved upon me I would not.



Want to try that again without the primary grade insult?

The modern institution of western philosophical thought originates directly from Greece. That was ther primary basis of OUR discussion. Would you care to continue that discussion or would you care to continue your petty insults?

I would rather we discuss.

my definition? I posted the definition from a dictionary. If you dont think that there were philosophers before the greeks, or that the only ones that mattered were born from and branched out from the greeks, the greeks somehow the first to have both the left and right hemispheres of the brain in humanity's evolution, well yes discussion with you on this is futile.



well then perhaps you should have just stopped there?



hold on sparky, Im all for the definition..as I posted it, from a third party whose business it is to define and/or publish established definitions. did you want to debate their offering of the definition of philosophy?

the origin of the sound we make with our mouth to communicate the meaning, indeed matters little.







historians? surely as someone seemingly educated you see the folly in riding the coat tails of historians to the extent of discarding logic to fall in line with them?
and that is another reason we are not compatible enough to have this conversation and hope for anything constructive.






I havent masturbated one time today.



It was a futile effort on my part, to give a little so that I could teach what I had to teach and learn what I had to learn and maybe have a few laughs along the way...my bad eh?

agreed.



but and because you made an entire new post to jack off about it with frog? um...duh?





wow, there are a few new words in front of philosophical, how convenient for you..modern institution of western...Ill give you a nickel ninety five for em.

odd, i dont see that in the initial post...
or do you mean your and my discussion?

the subjectivity of your and my views branch off because youre into historians and what they tell you, Im a little more hands on and going straight from the definition of the word philosophy and what Ive read and studied on my own while having the great privilege of observing and being surrounded by less "modern" cultures heavy in old tradition. we are two different animals on this topic it would seem.

This is all that really matters in your entire post above. The rest was redundant tripe. As such I will only answer this.

The greeks defined modern western philosphical thought and as such were its forefathers. Just as the Sumerians birthed written language, mathematics, agriculture, and many other things. Sure it is easy to postulate that others may have come before them and yet they were the first "recorded" and as such share the distinction of being the "first". It is no fault of my own that you need to hypothetically stretch the thin line of truth and seek out some sort of satisfaction that perhaps others came before the Greeks who may have shared some of the same tenants of thought which led to philosophic thought.

Once again, the Greeks were the first to postulate philosophical thought and record it. Do you wish to hold forth some sort of 'FACTS" to deny that claim or shall we continue to place faith in your opinion??

Burn.

first of all, im not sure that "western" philosophical thought is all that important, and my contributions to this topic are not exclusive to western anything but societies in general. and newton didnt invent gravity just because he was the first to "define" it.

so as far as youre concerned they were the first. its all about you and not about reasonable possibilities. furthermore, if this is the end all for you, the written language and agriculture thing well archaeologists are regularly coming up with proof that mesoamerica and africa both preceded or in the least matched the sumerians: the extent to which it was done and the make-up of it varied due to ecological variations. the plow or variations of it however, according to some of our dear historians, seemed to be invented around the same time in mesoamerica, north america, southern europe, africa, asia and mesopotamia.

well this is all your opinion and the faith you place in historians, so much so that youll not consider anything outside of what youve been taught..
you can say, "This is all that really matters in your entire post above. The rest was redundant tripe. As such I will only answer this" and pick and choose what youll confront but it is true all day long. My Point is I will consider everything, and that is the main difference between you and I. and that is all there is to it. I am not as disciplined and conditioned as you, nor do I put all that much faith in historians, certainly not so much that i will dismiss anything outside the realm of what they tell me.

We have records of Chinese and Indian philosophy going back further than the Greeks, actually, Dyshade. Buddha and Confucius were both dead and ash before Socrates was ever born.

Derdy is actually right, even if her arguments aren't very eloquent. All evidence and logic indicates that philosophy is a natural aspect of the human condition. Once we get past the stage where we have enough to eat, we naturally start asking "Why?" Now, the Greeks were certainly influential to Western philosophy and theology for thousands of years to come, and they codified much, but to claim that without them philosophy would not exist is simply wrong.

Hell, the first written text we have, the Epic of Gilgamesh, is nothing if not a philosophical tale- What is life? What is love? What is friendship? Why do we struggle if all comes to nothing? Gilgamesh's struggle to obtain immortality, his noble quest where his prize is taken at the end by a snake as he sleeps, is as apt a metaphor for life as any that has been made in the four thousand years since. When he invites Urshanabi to look upon his city at the end of the tale, that is his answer; he's saying "I will die. My city will die. But once, this was here. Once, I was here." And this centuries before Troy was even built, much less destroyed.

meh! I talk eloquent! Like a drunken ballerina of DOOM!

good post.