the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

truth glistens posted 10 Apr 2006, 21:04 by Quinthane, Candidate

... .. . The Vulgar man reads Bakker by analogy to Potter and therefore sees him as 'Sinister and Mean and Woman-hating'. The Wise man reads Bakker by analogy to GRRM and his ilk and therefore sees him as 'The DM that we DREAMT we coulda played with back in the dicing day!' However, those who walk conditioned ground read Bakker by analogy to no one, because they know that comprehension, which is a long word to spell, can only do violence to Bakker, who does the bob-and-weave. It is enough, they know, that Bakker thinks of them......and drops everything to explain every nook and cranny of Earwa. ... .. . view post


posted 10 Apr 2006, 22:04 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

Did you mean for their to be two posts one in here and one in Offtopic section? view post


posted 11 Apr 2006, 09:04 by Sokar, Auditor

I wonder which of the three you belong to? view post


posted 18 Apr 2006, 08:04 by Curethan, Didact

I read it backwards .... and I know the truth! view post


posted 23 Apr 2006, 03:04 by vercint, Peralogue

Yes, and the truth is that there is no truth... view post


posted 02 Jun 2006, 23:06 by Zarathinius, Auditor

Truthfully, I agree. -- For the Vulgar Man reads the Truth, and, upon Knowing it, claims to know what Truth is. The Wise Man reads the Truth, and, upon Knowing it, reveals it to be False by using fancy Philosophical rhetoric he read in a book. However, those who walk conditioned ground realize that they are walking upon said ground without shoes, which is very uncomfortable, because they know that shoes can only cause their feet to stink. It is enough, they know, that they can know the Truth by looking it up on the Internet....they ask Scott Bakker. -- [i:2w5l09qg]Here I shall beg forgiveness for making a pathetic joke out of a much better joke.[/i:2w5l09qg] view post


posted 07 Jun 2006, 18:06 by JustifiedHeretic, Peralogue

But is not man fallable? So if we can make mistakes how can we ever be certain of the world around us? How can we be certain that the "facts" we know are not mere twists of theories to accomodate our wants. In this I say there can be no truth and if there was we could not know it, because there can be nothing for certain. view post


posted 08 Jun 2006, 01:06 by Zarathinius, Auditor

Congratulations, JustifiedHeretic. You just caused my brain to melt. Well done. view post


posted 08 Jun 2006, 02:06 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

How do we know what you say is true Justified or are you saying these things to twist our own thoughts on the truth to accomadate for your want to confuse us all. How can we be certain you truly made this post? Could we not be accomadating for our want of an explanation of the truth? Try getting out of this one mister. And if this starts to get Matrixie I think i might shoot myself I hate that movie. view post


posted 08 Jun 2006, 04:06 by Curethan, Didact

Lol. I think, therefore I drink. view post


posted 08 Jun 2006, 05:06 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

One evening Rene Descartes went to relax at a local tavern. The bartender approached and said, "Ah, good evening Monsieur Descartes! Shall I serve you the usual drink?". Descartes replied, "I think not.", and promptly vanished. view post


posted 08 Jun 2006, 09:06 by Peter, Auditor

Descartes walks into a bar, and a few pints later he begins philosophophising. Eventually he comes to the conclusion "I am therefore I think"... but not that is wrong (silly French accents prepared) zat eez putting de cart before de horse... badum boom tsch... :D :oops: I'll get my coat. view post


posted 08 Jun 2006, 15:06 by JustifiedHeretic, Peralogue

Plato then storms into the bar and slaps Descartes so hard causing his brain to temporarily stop thinking causing Descartes to vanish for a split second. view post


posted 14 Jun 2006, 20:06 by Zarathinius, Auditor

And then Aristotle, the bartender, comes up with a scientific theory stating that French poeple dissapear when slapped by Greeks. This is the only theory for which he ever had any evidence. Machiavelli, sitting near the back, points out that the ends justify the means. Since the end was the dissapearence of a drunken French philosopher, it justified allowing an angry Greek philosopher into the bar. Socrates was going to say something, but his drink was spiked with Water Hemlock. He dies. Confucius sits nearby, chatting with Lao-Tzu (in Chinese, of course). In keeping with their philosophies, neither disrupts the natural Tao of The Bar. Then Kellhus comes in and pwns them all with his Thousandfold Thought. He is then evicted from the bar for making a ruckus. view post


posted 14 Jun 2006, 20:06 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

Really we should turn this into a book, hell id buy it. We could call it something like [u:1ehlse2g]The Philosophy behind the Philosophers[/u:1ehlse2g] view post


posted 26 Jul 2006, 20:07 by Mahajanga Mordecai, Auditor

[quote="Zarathinius":2jl2hyhd] Confucius sits nearby, chatting with Lao-Tzu (in Chinese, of course). In keeping with their philosophies, neither disrupts the natural Tao of The Bar. [/quote:2jl2hyhd] Except that Lao Tzu couldn't stand Confucius. No self-respecting Taoist could. But yes, they would keep to themselves and that's why I love ancient Chinese philosophy. Oh, and to add to the story. Then Marcus Aurelius would walk into the room, kill everyone on the sharp end of his sword, and then write a book of woe about why his life is so tumultuous and impart the importance of making peace not war. And you thougt your Greek was cool. :twisted: view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.