wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:35:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:11:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:50:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:21enb5ls4p3judu9fr1lag7p53ufr2ct5j@4ax. com...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:vj0nb5tgbhfre620gncu7s81tisd98jcp6@4a x.com...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better
ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I
would
love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not
into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not
familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of
philosophy
and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to
believe,
I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially
by
the Socratics as you may care to believe.

"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist"
as
a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and
ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support
fallacious
reasoning."

However, I was going with the modern, popular definition.
Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative
to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence.
It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry
comes so easily.


I never mentioned Aristotle, and I would never assert that he was
deferential to that philosophy. I'm not sure where you got that from
my
comment or the links.

You said the two (sophism and chaos) were allies. That seems like a
relativistic statement.

Neither did I mention Aristotle. And why could "quintessence" not
have been the ally that I was speaking of?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


Sorry I meant Socatics. This is a method of arriving at the "truth"
through
questions and answers. This has something to do with sophistry, but
nothing
to do with chaos. I'm not a big fan of Aristotle.

That's fine. I suspected that you had misstated what you had intended
to say. By "Socratics," I was referring to the students of Socrates,
or those subsequently influenced by his philosophies or his methods of
inquiry. Those who were of the Socratic school frowned on the
Sophists and may have done so with good reason. But, whether there
was merit in the disdain shown by the Socratic school for the Sophists
is a point of contention among those who explore these things
assiduously, as I understand it. Two other prominent schools that
come from that epoch are the Epicurean and Stoic. Both are worth
exploring, for those interested in early philosophy, to appreciate how
currently popular conceptions of the Stoic and the Epicurean differ
from their original precepts.


I've always had an affinity toward stoicism, and I appreciate the attacks
Epicureans have on superstition and deity worship. I'm not a hedonist,
particularly.

I guess I'm not a stoic either. lol

Perhaps you're more of a Utilitarian?

I'm a bit rusty when it comes to philosophy, but isn't that much like
practicalism? I can be very not practical.

I'm a Kierkegaard existentialist myself (at least in some small
measure).

I always preferred reading Sartre... cut from the same cloth, but more
modern.

--
Nom=de=Plume