Here is a link to a site where you answer a series of questions, and are allocated an ancient philosopher as your guru.

I got Pyrrho the skeptic, who'd a thunk it? lol

http://www.markvernon.com/quiz/my-philosophy-guru/

It only takes a few minutes, and you can even watch a little 3 minute video about the guru you get.

---

mozzaok wrote on Jun 7^th, 2010 at 8:27pm:

Here is a link to a site where you answer a series of questions, and are allocated an ancient philosopher as your guru. I got Pyrrho the skeptic, who'd a thunk it? lol http://www.markvernon.com/quiz/my-philosophy-guru/ It only takes a few minutes, and you can even watch a little 3 minute video about the guru you get.

Zeno, me.
Founder of stoicism.

I would have thought Zeno of Elea with his paradoxes would be more your style, but maybe he is being held in reserve for Freediver?
I imagine he would enjoy some of Zeno's paradoxes.

I like this line from wikipedia, I think you may see a bit of this in the guru.

Quote:

it can be difficult to determine, in some areas, precisely what he thought, but his general views can be outlined:

mozzaok wrote on Jun 7^th, 2010 at 10:47pm:

I would have thought Zeno of Elea with his paradoxes would be more your style, but maybe he is being held in reserve for Freediver? I imagine he would enjoy some of Zeno's paradoxes. I like this line from wikipedia, I think you may see a bit of this in the guru. Quote: it can be difficult to determine, in some areas, precisely what he thought, but his general views can be outlined:

Well, one of the questions was: do you prefer forging deeper questions or clear answers? I studied philosophy and know that you can have the right questions, never the right answers.

Epicurus for me.

Who the fkuc is Zeno? I wanted Aristotle!

lol," Aristotle, Aristotle, was a bugger for the bottle"

I can see why you would feel an affinity Ammad, I think a lot of us could enjoy sharing a dram or two with the great thinkers, whilst suitably lubricated.

As far as Zeno goes, there were two prominent Zenos, one Zeno of Citium, the one associated with the stoics, and the other Zeno of Elea, who was famous for his paradoxes.
I only know this cos I looked them up on wikipedia, as I am no great scholar myself, but I would be interested which one you got, as I expected Freediver to get Zeno of Elea because of the way he structures some of his arguments, which confuse the heck out of me.


Here is a link to the Monty Python team doing the Philosophers song;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE7Fe1cGLPk&feature=related

Quote:

lol," Aristotle, Aristotle, was a bugger for the bottle"

;D
Yes, many a man looked for thy answer within contents of the bottle  where the answer lay verily within the bottle itself.

Aristotle, that wasn't your sh!t surely? Nope, he was never that drunk.

Quote:

Better a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotamy

Did Arsistotle say that one?

I was the stoic Zeno, but didn't know quite how to answer a lot of those questions because there were so many paradoxes.
...did the test again. Zeno of the Stoics...he musta been permanently p!ssed.i

Quote:

Zeno of the Stoics...he musta been permanently p!ssed.

lol, yep, he was too pissed to give a hoot, permanently pickled.

I had got my zenos mixed up before, but modified them to the right way now, lol, I said I was no great scholar, but I couldn't even copy right. ;D

Quote:

lol, yep, he was too pissed to give a hoot, permanently pickled.

I think you jest. I can't find anything to say that he was a drunk, moreso that he was against drunkeness.
There probably weren't enough palatable beverages to be affordably abused in those days anyway.

Zeno (the Stoic) seemed to be pretty close to being right on the money as far as I can see (and of course he would probably convince me further) and it's a pity that more of his works weren't saved, it may have spared us from the scourge of religions a couple of thousand years in advance. Yep, me and Zeno, we woulda been mates.
I think that I would be struggling to find anything much to argue with him about, except that it seems that he strangled himself to death aged at about 72 because it aligned with his philosophy. Quite noble maybe, but questionable.

Epicurus

Quote:

Epicurus: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”[11]

What if that ever made sense?

Amadd wrote on Jun 9^th, 2010 at 7:51am:

[quote]it's a pity that more of his works weren't saved, it may have spared us from the scourge of religions a couple of thousand years in advance.

His followers and readers believed him - they were stoical about the loss of his works.

:P

Amadd wrote on Jun 9^th, 2010 at 9:00am:

Quote: Epicurus: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”[11] What if that ever made sense?

It makes perfect sense. Another option is that God was able and willing, but he kicked the bucket.  ;D

muso wrote on Jun 9^th, 2010 at 10:04am:

Amadd wrote on Jun 9th, 2010 at 9:00am: Quote: Epicurus: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”[11] What if that ever made sense? It makes perfect sense. Another option is that God was able and willing, but he kicked the bucket.  ;D

There is also the "travelling god" theory, where he was a sort of Johnny Appleseed type of character, making his way across the cosmos spreading the seed of life, with nary a backward glance.

This theory allows theists to have their, "it had to start somewhere" argument, but still paints them as being a bit silly for talking to him like he was listening or gave a rat's, or could do anything about it, even if he could hear their pleas from the other side of the cosmos while he continues to spread his seed.

Personally I find the travelling god argument far less ridiculous than any "interventionist" god theories that I have heard.

Zeno of Citium for me too :)

Remember Monty Python's philosophers' soccer match?  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2kAnTZBnTg

I was Zeno of Citium, founder of stoicism, when I answered truthfully. Then I tried it again and lied for every question and came out as  - Epicurus.

Well I just copied what you did Soren, and gave an opposite response to every answer and got Zeno of Citium too.

I am holding grave doubts about the efficacy of these findings, and may have to refer the results onto the philosophical society for verification.

Maybe they just think everyone doesn't give a crap, so stoics it is for them?

I mean if you were handing out philosophers for real, you would want a Plato, or Aristotle, or even a Heidegger for Soren, but these third stringers we are getting did not even get a run in the philosophers cup final.

I liked the philosopher's soccer match  ;D

It reminds me of the way climate change is being tackled.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 9^th, 2010 at 2:46pm:

Well I just copied what you did Soren, and gave an opposite response to every answer and got Zeno of Citium too.

Now we know - you are my evil twin.

:P

Quote:

7. What do you think is more admirable: to be questioning or to be brave? (a) To be questioning (b) To be brave

I mean... sheeit...To be brave is admirable by definition... To be questioning ? Sometimes admirable... Sometimes the mark of a coward.

Quote:

I mean... sheeit...To be brave is admirable by definition... To be questioning ? Sometimes admirable... Sometimes the mark of a coward.

It's like those polls that ask a question without giving an example of any specific circumstance. The first thought answer is usually "Well, it depends".
A suicide bomber giving his/her life for something irrational may be brave by definition, but not very admirable. A questioning suicide bomber would be more admirable in that circumstance.

Kinda reminds me of the Replublican debate where a few distasteful models of an Australian replublic were granted for the public to vote on. Of course the public hated all of them and the rejection those models were a vote for Howard's monarchy.
It's also like being forced to vote for Labor for no other reason than to keep the libs out of power. It's all dictatorship by bluff. If you gave a hoot about your kid's futures, you'd know what the admirable thing to do is - but admiring yourself is all that matters.

Surely you’d only ascribe the term “brave” to an act you admire… An act that you would (or wish you could) carry out yourself. Why would you ascribe the same to an act you’d consider malignant or murderous?

Isn’t the term used exclusively to describe admirable acts?

Quote:

Surely you’d only ascribe the term “brave” to an act you admire… An act that you would (or wish you could) carry out yourself. Why would you ascribe the same to an act you’d consider malignant or murderous? Isn’t the term used exclusively to describe admirable acts?

No, I wouldn't think that at all.
I think that I'm being empathetic and I'm understanding that everybody's life experiences are different from that of others.
I agree that the bravery is admirable in itself, but not when it comes to stupidity. I suppose everybody has to draw a line somewhere, and that's my line for what it's worth.
And to draw another line from my favourite philosopher, 'Maxwell Smart' : If only he had used his talent for goodness instead of rottenness...

No I don't admire acts of bravery at all if they are for a futile cause. Moreso, I'd say that they got exactly what they deserved and chuck them into the Darwin bin.i

"A courageous decision, minister".

The good old Darwin Awards, I too hold a grudging admiration for those who sacrifice themselves for the betterment of the species.

Here is the latest from their site.

Quote:

In the late fall and early winter months, snow-covered mountains become infested with hunters. One ambitious pair climbed high up a mountain in search of their quarry. The trail crossed a small glacier that had crusted over. The lead hunter had to stomp a foot-hold in the snow, one step at a time, in order to cross the glacier. Somewhere near the middle of the glacier, his next stomp hit not snow but a rock. The lead hunter lost his footing and fell. Down the crusty glacier he zipped, off the edge and out of sight. Unable to help, his companion watched him slide away. After a while, he shouted out, "Are you OK?" "Yes!" came the answer. Reasoning that it was a quick way off the glacier, the second hunter plopped down and accelerated down the ice, following his friend. There, just over the edge of the glacier, was his friend...holding onto the top of a tree that barely protruded from the snow. There were no other treetops nearby, nothing to grab, nothing but a hundred-foot drop onto the rocks below. As the second hunter shot past the first, he uttered his final epitaph: a single word, which we may not utter lest our mothers soap our mouths.

Only a grudging admiration, Mozz?

Quote:

Surely you’d only ascribe the term “brave” to an act you admire… An act that you would (or wish you could) carry out yourself.

That's a pathetic response. I wouldn't be fearful at all at holding back aggression, I would moreso see it as a feather in my cap.
If you want to beckon for aggression, then you will surely get it. It's the most cowardly of requests.

Amadd wrote on Jun 11^th, 2010 at 10:49am:

Quote: Surely you’d only ascribe the term “brave” to an act you admire… An act that you would (or wish you could) carry out yourself. That's a pathetic response. I wouldn't be fearful at all at holding back aggression, I would moreso see it as a feather in my cap. If you want to beckon for aggression, then you will surely get it. It's the most cowardly of requests.

Not sure what you're reading.

Did I say anything about fear?

Brave and Courageous have slightly different meanings in practice.

Brave is just the ability to operate effectively in the presence of  fear. It doesn't preclude stupidity, but foolhardy is a better term in such cases.

Courageous comes from the Latin root for heart. It has some altruistic implications as well as implications of being resolute in principle, as well as having given the matter due consideration.

Brave can be more off-the-cuff. Like if you criticise your wife's haircut in public. It's brave, but not very courageous :)


You can be both brave and foolhardy, but courageous and foolhardy is an oxymoron.

Quote:

brave    late 15c., from M.Fr., "splendid, valiant," from It. bravo "brave, bold," originally "wild, savage," possibly from M.L. bravus "cutthroat, villain," from L. pravus "crooked, depraved;" a less likely etymology being from L. barbarus (see barbarous). A Celtic origin (Ir. breagh, Cornish bray) also has been suggested. The noun application to N. American Indian warriors is from c.1600. O.E. words for this, some with overtones of "rashness," included modig (now "moody"), beald ("bold"), cene ("keen"), dyrstig ("daring"). The verb "to face with bravery" is from 1776, from Fr. braver. Brave new world is from the title of Aldous Huxley's 1932 satirical utopian novel; he lifted the phrase from Shakespeare ("Tempest" v.i.183).

Quote:

courage     c.1300, from O.Fr. corage (12c., Mod.Fr. courage) "heart, innermost feelings; temper," from V.L. *coraticum (cf. It. coraggio, Sp. coraje), from L. cor "heart," which remains a common metaphor for inner strength. In M.E., used broadly for "what is in one's mind or thoughts," hence "bravery," but also "wrath, pride, confidence, lustiness," or any sort of inclination. Replaced O.E. ellen, which also meant "zeal, strength."

Hmmm... Yeah...

Courage is from good stock... Got a good education and has a mind to quaff a fine wine with cheese, I bet... (not that its a wuss... like say, serendipity)...

Brave's got a few scumbag rellies (like cutthroat and villian)... Left school at 15 and sculls its piss like a biker on goey.

Still... Hard to say you couldn't admire the brave.... Or the courageous.

Quote:

Still... Hard to say you couldn't admire the brave.... Or the courageous.

Hard to say that you can't admire or disadmire the brave, the courageous, the questionable depending on specific cicumstances.
They say that there's no such thing as a stupid question. I think you've proved that statement to be false.

Amadd wrote on Jun 11^th, 2010 at 11:01pm:

Quote: Still... Hard to say you couldn't admire the brave.... Or the courageous. Hard to say that you can't admire or disadmire the brave, the courageous, the questionable depending on specific cicumstances. They say that there's no such thing as a stupid question. I think you've proved that statement to be false.

Disadmire?

Can you name a circumstance where you'd correctly use the terms 'brave' or 'courageous' to define, in themselves, something you 'disadmire' (or despise) ? Can you name a circumstance where your intent is to define neutral feelings?

Even when using them in an ironic sense (such as "a courageous decision, minister") or in an oxymoronic sense (such as "brave fool"), you intend for both terms, in themselves, to define an admirable quality.

Brave can be both applied to a person as a defining aspect of persionality and to particular acts that can be carried out by otherwise despicable people.

A scumbag is a scumbag even if he acts bravely on occasion.

Courage (stout-hearted would be the best translation) often used interchangably with brave but in french, at least, where it comes from it is more about character than a particular act, precisely because it is about the heart. "His heart is in the right place" speaks about the same sort of way thinking about personality.

A scumbag doesn't have his heart in the right place (which is chief reason for his 'scumbaggery').

Soren wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 11:28am:

A scumbag is a scumbag even if he acts bravely on occasion.

Yes, a scumbag can commit an isolated act of bravery that deviates from  his character. You could say Joe is a scumbag, but he was brave to run into a burning building to save someone, yet still consider him overall a scumbag.

But in the context of defining an act he committed as brave, you would, by that, be defining it as an admirable act.

Yes, that's the sort of point I was trying to make. Brave acts, in themselves admirable, can be carried out by scumbags.
Other words/ideas apply to character (heart in the right place, derivations from courage/stout heartedness), describe acts that come from character.

I am looking to see if the distiction can be made: acts in themselves and acts as manifestations of general character.

Would you agree that Joe the scumbag, while in commission of a brave act, is himself,  brave and therefore admirable (albeit temporarily so) ?

Quote:

Can you name a circumstance where you'd correctly use the terms 'brave' or 'courageous' to define, in themselves, something you 'disadmire' (or despise) ?

I thought that I already did. I'd disadmire a suicide bomber who thinks that by killing innocent people in the name of Allah, then they will be blessed with 72 virgins in the afterlife. It would take a certain amount of courage and bravery to go ahead and commit those types of acts, but it's not at all admirable from my standpoint, it's just lowering the bar of human morality.
Of course I do admire some bravery where there seems to be no rational thinking behind it depending on the circumstance.

Amadd wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 1:25am:

Quote: Can you name a circumstance where you'd correctly use the terms 'brave' or 'courageous' to define, in themselves, something you 'disadmire' (or despise) ? I thought that I already did. I'd disadmire a suicide bomber who thinks that by killing innocent people in the name of Allah, then they will be blessed with 72 virgins in the afterlife. It would take a certain amount of courage and bravery to go ahead and commit those types of acts, but it's not at all admirable from my standpoint, it's just lowering the bar of human morality. Of course I do admire some bravery where there seems to be no rational thinking behind it depending on the circumstance.

Suicide bombers are not courageous. They are cowards.

Quote:

It would take a certain amount of courage and bravery to go ahead and commit those types of acts, but it's not at all admirable from my standpoint, it's just lowering the bar of human morality.

And yet it seems you’re conceding something about the act of suicide bombing.

When you say “a certain amount of courage and bravery”, how would you characterise that part of the act?  Admirable? If not, what is the nature of the certain amount of courage and bravery you refer to?

Quote:

When you say “a certain amount of courage and bravery”, how would you characterise that part of the act?  Admirable? If not, what is the nature of the certain amount of courage and bravery you refer to?

OK, I can see what you're saying and I admire your questioning   :)

muso wrote on Jun 13^th, 2010 at 7:41am:

Suicide bombers are not courageous. They are cowards.

Yes, you hear that a lot regarding the act of suicide bombing, but I think its more rhetoric than an accurate definition... More an attempt to distance as far as possible, one's definition of their act from courage or bravery by using a direct antonym.

But cowardice defines a shying from risk or loss of one's life, not a headlong rush into it.

Not that I think their actions are brave or courageous.

It is not brave or courageous to kill oneself in order to cause the death of the innocent, but its not cowardice either.

I think their acts are best defined as psychotic.

It is not possible to be a brave suicide bomber for a despicable cause. 'Bravery' for a bad cause is not bravery, it is foolhardiness.

Maybe stronger definitions are required for suicide bombing, such as malignant or, using a religious term, Satanic.

It's on par with the father who murders his children then kills himself.

Quote:

Maybe stronger definitions are required for suicide bombing, such as malignant or, using a religious term, Satanic.

It's a subjective defintion isn't it?
Wouldn't the supporters of those suicide bombers see them as being brave and courageous?
Wouldn't you also see somebody who gave their life to say, stop the S11 attacks as being brave and courageous, even though it was in direct opposition to the idealisms of the attackers and their supporters?

I reckon it moreso comes down to personal opinion of what you think is right and what is wrong. I doubt if Australians would generally have a respect for the bravery of the Turks in Gallipoli unless we had a little unsderstanding that our presence there wasn't quite right.

Therefore, the resistance of the Turks becomes a meaning to us of bravery instead of stupidity or ignorance, which was probably the opinion of the diggers who were fighting against them at the time.

It ended up that the diggers were probably fighting for the wrong cause. But we very much respect them and call them brave because they were so loyal to the nation, and how could they know the politics behind what they were doing?

The Vietnam vets, on the other hand, were not held in such great esteem, because the public had urged them not to interfere. A lot of them were branded cowards for not questioning the orders thay had had been given, regardless of how much more bravery they may have exibited on the battle field compared to the imagined better concept of bravery that has been regularly exhibited during more publicly palatable wars.

It might just be that questioning can stop more wars than bravery can start or continue. I'd choose to go with questioning why I would want be party to killing, or being killed by somebody who I probably like far better than those who give the orders.

Quote:

It's a subjective defintion isn't it?

Yes.


Quote:

Wouldn't the supporters of those suicide bombers see them as being brave and courageous?

Probably.

In your opinion is it a brave and courageous act?


Quote:

Wouldn't you also see somebody who gave their life to say, stop the S11 attacks as being brave and courageous, even though it was in direct opposition to the idealisms of the attackers and their supporters?

Yes. Including those who risked and those who lost their lives helping others out of the disintegrating buildings.


Quote:

I reckon it moreso comes down to personal opinion of what you think is right and what is wrong. I doubt if Australians would generally have a respect for the bravery of the Turks in Gallipoli unless we had a little unsderstanding that our presence there wasn't quite right.

I think you're wrong there. From the stories I've read and been told, the Australian troops had a deep respect for the Turks. It was catastrophe for the Australians that the Turks had one of the greatest military leaders and future statesman of the 20th Century commanding  them. Ataturk paid tribute to the Australian troops and admired their courage and bravery to the point where he was motivated to write this to those grieving back home :

"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives...
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country,
therefore rest in peace.
There is no difference between the Johnnies
and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side.
Here in this country of ours...
You, the mothers,
who sent their sons from far away countries
wipe away your tears.
Your sons are now lying in our bosom
and are at peace.
After having lost their lives on this land they have
become our sons as well."


Quote:

Therefore, the resistance of the Turks becomes a meaning to us of bravery instead of stupidity or ignorance, which was probably the opinion of the diggers who were fighting against them at the time.

Yes.


Quote:

It ended up that the diggers were probably fighting for the wrong cause. But we very much respect them and call them brave because they were so loyal to the nation, and how could they know the politics behind what they were doing?

Yes, sometimes we find ourselves on the wrong side, which doesn't necessarily subtract from the bravery and courage we may display in the performance of our duty.


Quote:

The Vietnam vets, on the other hand, were not held in such great esteem, because the public had urged them not to interfere. A lot of them were branded cowards for not questioning the orders thay had had been given, regardless of how much more bravery they may have exibited on the battle field compared to the imagined better concept of bravery that has been regularly exhibited during more publicly palatable wars.

Public opinion can be perverse.


Quote:

It might just be that questioning can stop more wars than bravery can start or continue. I'd choose to go with questioning why I would want be party to killing, or being killed by somebody who I probably like far better than those who give the orders.

The pen is mightier than the sword?

The brave seek reasons for why they should fight, while cowards seek excuses to hide.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 14^th, 2010 at 7:15am:

Maybe stronger definitions are required for suicide bombing, such as malignant or, using a religious term, Satanic. It's on par with the father who murders his children then kills himself.

Pusillanimous might be more appropriate. So would docile, gullible  and sheepish. Certainly not brave or courageous.

As far as the perpetrators and organisers are concerned, I don't have a problem with the word "evil" or "malignant".

Quote:

In your opinion is it a brave and courageous act?

Of course not. It would devalue the meaning of those words far too much.

I still have a couple of old papers from the couple of days after the S11 attacks. They make for very interesting present day reading, let me tell you.
The first headline is "PURE EVIL". And I'd go along with that.
You'd hardly think that the headline would be, "PURE BRAVEY" or "PURE COURAGE" would you?
I couldn't associate those words without also including logic and reason. If logic and reason are missing, then the word often morphs itself into another word with a far different meaning, commonly known as "stupidity".i

It depends on the purpose of the act. Those eveil bastards who flew planes into the World Trade Centre were hailed as brave martyrs by those who were dancing on the streets in celebration of the news. To me, the dancers were also evil bastards.
To me this illustrates that not every point of vew is equal.

An act is brave if the purpose of the act is positive. The act cannot be separated from the wider context of the act itself. Furthermore, what is positive and what is not is not simply a matter of perspective or opinion. Opinions and perspectives are not equal.

cool!

Im ARISTOTLE  8-)

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2010 at 12:18pm:

Opinions and perspectives are not equal.

Correct. A lot depends on individual perspective. Your opinions and perspectives are more important to you than those of others.  

Quote:

cool! Im ARISTOTLE    8-)

That sux, so does Zeno  >:(

Can you send me your answer list?

Another Aristotle  here !


'Nature does nothing in vain.' ~ Aristotle



smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Very new so just testing this out.. :)

muso wrote on Jun 18^th, 2010 at 2:45pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 15th, 2010 at 12:18pm: Opinions and perspectives are not equal. Correct. A lot depends on individual perspective. Your opinions and perspectives are more important to you than those of others.

They seem pretty important to you, too...

Soren wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 9:56pm:

muso wrote on Jun 18th, 2010 at 2:45pm: Soren wrote on Jun 15th, 2010 at 12:18pm: Opinions and perspectives are not equal. Correct. A lot depends on individual perspective. Your opinions and perspectives are more important to you than those of others.   They seem pretty important to you, too...

I think it's universal. I should have used 'one's' but it always sounds pretentious.

COOL TOPIC!!!!

Here are my results:

Your recommended philosophy-guru is ARISTOTLE.

Key fact: The star pupil of Plato.

Must have: A desire to study the world and see what it reveals.

Key promise: The good life, which comes from living a virtuous life.

Key peril: The virtuous life can be tough.

Most likely to say: "Everything has its proper place."

Least likely to say: "Science is where humanity went wrong."


Actually .. I agree with the above and anyone who knows me in real time also KNOWS that I say, "Everything has its own parking spot" quite a bit coz as far as I am concerned .. it's a generic principle which applies to so many different contexts .. from little toddlers who need to be taught the art of packing their toys and shoes away .. right through to office staff and family members who are forever looking for things .. sighs.

Your recommended philosophy-guru is PYRRHO OF ELIS

Rubbish.

I am somewhere in the midst of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Machiavelli.