chenGOD Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 You want me to speak in portuguese, french, mandarin?? I'd like to see you interpret everything to perfection... Tell me where did I get you wrong? You clrearly take the side of the bankers here. You assume most people affected understood the economic conjuncture when in reality they were just attracted by the fees. It's the banks and the governement's fault. The banks loaned repacked home mortages to under-qualified buyers who subsequently defaulted on their payments and they had the obligation to know were that shit led to. You can speak whatever language you like, although since the primary language of communication on this bulletin board is English, I think that would be fair to the others, not that anyone else gives a damn. I assume nothing. The people who were consumed by greed paid the price. The banks didn't lend repackaged mortgages to home-owners. That doesn't even make sense. The bankers did lend to people they shouldn't have - commonly referred to as NINJAs (No Income No Jobs or Assets) - and they packaged those risky loans (because liabilities count as assets) with other less risky loans and flipped those to investment funds without informing them of the true nature of the risks. That is where the bankers should be held accountable, and that is where oversight needs to be in place. The people without those jobs, income or assets should, before making decisions that could have a large impact on their lives, do some goddamned research into the feasibility of the promises of the bankers. You've never heard the saying - "if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is"? Personal responsibility is not something to ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 how can he take the side of the bankers? he just said he wanted to find those who lied about inflating the housing prices be held criminally culpable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanakori Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 You're so naive. You don't deal with poor people often do you? That big screen talk just really shows your colors, you really think most people went in debt for a Suv or big screen, and even so, just for the sake of it?? But whatever delet said it all right there in the classiest way possible and you just couldn't admit it . You're probably some spoiled "emancipated" (rich) kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanakori Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 You want me to speak in portuguese, french, mandarin?? I'd like to see you interpret everything to perfection... Tell me where did I get you wrong? You clrearly take the side of the bankers here. You assume most people affected understood the economic conjuncture when in reality they were just attracted by the fees. It's the banks and the governement's fault. The banks loaned repacked home mortages to under-qualified buyers who subsequently defaulted on their payments and they had the obligation to know were that shit led to. You can speak whatever language you like, although since the primary language of communication on this bulletin board is English. Why pretend you didn't understand what I meant? But whatever dude, whatever makes you feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 jesus christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Miscellaneous thoughts inbound I have had a very ambiguous relationship with philosophy, because it's very hard to determine what a "result" is in philosophy. In most cases there seem to be no hard and fast conclusions, as in mathematics, and no way to decide between multiple explanations of something (as in science). Most people would probably say "of course, that this is the point of philosophy", or even go so far as to claim that the search for "ultimates" is misguided. (I disagree.) Anyways, it seems like a lot of philosophy is grasping at straws. Valiantly of course. In many ways philosophy institutionalizes the individual's search for truth. Everyone who has ever claimed to hold The Truth has been at odds with every other person who claims to hold The Truth. And usually there aren't any theorems or experiments to tip the scales. So the primary function of philosophy from the perspective of a person might be to clarify their own suppositions, beliefs, and how they relate to other beliefs. But not necessarily to make strong decisions about correctness of those beliefs. (I took a political philosophy course to get a credit last semester, and the professor said that this was the reason why Marxism captured the hearts of so many of his colleages — because of the role it gave to thought as an active means of change in the world. Politics aside, I can relate to this.) Of course, there's a spectrum of acuity in philosophy that is not present in any other area of human inquiry, from the incisive and clear analysis of the David Lewises, to the meaningless drivel of the Baudrillards and Guattaris. There is much talk of an analytic/continental divide, but I think the more relevant division is between clear and unclear. The problem is that the unclear side is not called out often enough, which may be a large part of what stains philosophy in the public eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I agree with many of your points on the surface, but as you said, there are things to be addressed that cannot easily be done by pure mathematics. Mathematics itself could be considered a philosophy, no? We use glyphs and symbology to demonstrate the supposed laws of nature and the universe, these symbols are connected via equations, geometric proofing, theorems, etc. etc. Are we any closer to explaining or completely defining what a "zero" truly is outside of the conceptual realm? Or infinity? It should follow that any mathematics using such concepts to prove laws of the universe are one of two possible things. As a law of the universe can only be true or untrue, these mathematical proofs either are completely incorrect about the ways of the universe (not likely), or they are examples of human thinking knowing some of it, but still requires a shift in perception to acquire the rest of it. The only difference Im not a mathematician, but I am willing to bet that if you dug far enough into the specialization of the craft you would find a disagreement over a seemingly simple equation. Mathematics still require something independent of rote analytics, it requires perception, and the shifting of perception when the current one does not seem to reveal the whole and entire path. Right? Or I could be talking out of my ass. I think clear and unclear is sort of oversimplifying the issue. But again, I sorta see what you are saying. We can probably blame most of that on metaphysics. And there are some blatantly obscurantist assholes pretending to be great thinkers. But I would like tothink (and perhaps I am naive on this) that they are affirmed eventually by generational consensus of like and different minds. I wish I was in a better frame of mind to discuss this. See? This was fun, no ? edit: waiting for a mathematician to shut down my nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I agree with many of your points on the surface, but as you said, there are things to be addressed that cannot easily be done by pure mathematics. Mathematics itself could be considered a philosophy, no? We use glyphs and symbology to demonstrate the supposed laws of nature and the universe, these symbols are connected via equations, geometric proofing, theorems, etc. etc. Are we any closer to explaining or completely defining what a "zero" truly is outside of the conceptual realm? Or infinity? It should follow that any mathematics using such concepts to prove laws of the universe are one of two possible things. As a law of the universe can only be true or untrue, these mathematical proofs either are completely incorrect about the ways of the universe (not likely), or they are examples of human thinking knowing some of it, but still requires a shift in perception to acquire the rest of it. The only difference Im not a mathematician, but I am willing to bet that if you dug far enough into the specialization of the craft you would find a disagreement over a seemingly simple equation. Mathematics still require something independent of rote analytics, it requires perception, and the shifting of perception when the current one does not seem to reveal the whole and entire path. Right? Zero is easy enough to define, and I think the concept of zero is readily apprehended by the mind. Infinity is much more tricky, but the need to accept the existence of infinity can be demonstrated easily, and once you have accepted this you can study the notion, which leads to many strange things. The point is that you don't have to accept any of it on faith. Your own philosophical ruminations can be temporarily set aside as you study the formalism. When you go home you can ask yourself whether the formalism is acceptable. There are definitely a lot of philosophical issues surrounding mathematics, but fortunately you can put those issues aside and follow the "Christian" school by just doing the mathematics and ignoring these issues. In short I disagree with the notion that mathematics is a philosophy. There are important parallels though. It has been said that every good mathematician is half-philosopher, and every good philosopher is half-mathematician. Empirically this holds up fairly well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 Right. But its the same thing as being into Logic. Both have "orthodox" means of sufficiently explaining things. But it obviously isn't enough to be relied upon. I guess this is a bad example, but it would be like trying to explain why someone would logically perform an illogical act. Yeah, you will make it comprehendable to the majority of people, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has been fully explained. Math undergoes constant self-revision, doesn't it? I mean, I don't think the term "philosophy" should be walled off into some ivory tower academic community. Philosophy is the highest form of thinking..but I do NOT mean this in the sense that those that claim to be "philosophers" are the supermen of the world. Because everyone uses these tools on a daily basis. Philosophical thinking goes on constantly in every individual. I mean, most people go by basic logical principles at surface value, "a does not equal b". So if some guy told me his wallet was also a pony, I would know he was a liar. But then comes the conceptual thing; what if he has a pony-shaped wallet? LOL i need to go to sleep. My point is that the longer I live, the more and more I feel like the idea of the dialectic is true. Everything is paradox, Eastern Philosophy, bleh bleh bleh, etc. You can't know the yin without the yang and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 I agree with most of what you wrote there. At the end of the day I think philosophy is an attitude that you bring to whatever table you're sitting down at. You've got one whether you realize it or not, so it's in your favor to examine it. but eventually, like baph says, you have to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted June 9, 2012 Share Posted June 9, 2012 If you had a pony-shaped wallet, then you could say to women "want to take a ride on my little pony?" and you wouldn't be lying. Here's an awesome book by Lawrence Lessig (Harvard law professor): "Free Culture" and here is a TED Talk by him which is on somewhat the same subject. MIT's open-course ware has an excellent site on visualizing cultures: http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/21f.027/home/index.html If you are interested in Buddhist thought at all, this text by 13th century Buddhist monk Kamo no Chomei is an excellent read that is not too long. Maybe it will turn your head in regards to desire for material objects. Hojoki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.