Max has really disgusted me.

[The One and Only...]

Apparently Max feels that it is more important to attack the integrity of the man in office rather than the issues. In fact, outside of Iraq, he rarely leads the initiative to discuss policy over politics.

Why? I don't know. Perhaps he is aware that he cannot defend himeself from pro-market arguments about tariffs, free vs. "fair" trade, social security investment options, market regulation, school choice, and complete privatization of healthcare. His arguments over such issues usually revolve around the state (no pun intended) of those in poverty, but even that gets blown away once we realize that killing the minimum wage and Davis-Bacon Act, along with nonsensical safety regulations and decreases in military and police spending, would allow for optimal employment within the market. Even if minimal welfare were necessary to continue, it would be a hell of a lot more efficient if we simply established a negative income tax than provided food stamps, Medicare/caid, public schools, etc. Which reminds me... simplifying our tax codes - which are so hilariously enormous that large, wealthy individuals often go to court over how much they need to pay - would get rid of unnecessary middle-corps. like Jackson Hewitt.

But NOOOO... he can't discuss these issues directly. Instead, referring to some abscure gay relationship between the Cato Institute and I provides a nice escape route to avoid the real issue. Not to mention claiming that I am on an intellectual ego trip more than once.

And this guy makes fun of Vince.

[Rez]

general blabber forum >:

[Helm]

As I was reading this thread, I started frantically looking for a 'lock thread' button to push :( In lack of it, I settled with the reply button in order to voice this desparate plea: Please, moderators that are, spare us of threads such as this!

I mean, even if I really cared what OAO thought of Max...

wait, I can't finish this sentence.

[Perndog]

Damn it OAO you're making me agree with Helm. >:

[The_Rorschach]

So yeah, anyway, like, but, you know?

Whatever.

[Protoclown]

I am going to let this abomination burble forth unhindered, because I am really looking forward to seeing Max yet again make Once and For All Later Every Tuesday his bitch.

[Big Papa Goat]

OAO has officially become Vince. :(

[mburbank]

He's not funny enough to be Vinth. Witness the Hissy fit that is this thread.

Here's what I can do; Argue any of the points you mentioned.

Here's what I can't do; be bothered right now.

Here's what I might do; be bothered ever.

You make statements far more often than arguments. They seem to stem from things you've been overly impressed by without trying to dig deeply into, as in siting levels of coal use in London over the last few centuries as proof that the environment is getting better. You are a young man in the first throes of puppy love with being smart. Thankfully it passes in most cases because it's insuferable. You desperately need to make the acquaintance of people smarter than you. This should not be as hard as you imagine.

As I may have mentioned before, I'm mostly here to play. You'll find the grand demonstration of throwing down the gauntlet is often followed by a dog running off with your glove. Go read "A Christmas Carol" and try to improve yourself.

[ziggytrix]

i can't wait for OAO's inevitable reply. :)

[Zhukov]

I think One Time Only is using Humour again.

[mburbank]

I hope he was kidding when he used the word Objectivism as if it were a real philosiphy and Ayn Rand a more serious writer than Stephen King. Hey! I'm embracing Dark Towerism as my personal philosiphy.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=8406

[mburbank]

You should probably reference that thread every time OAO posts.

[Anonymous]

:pac

[kahljorn]

I always thought max was kind of stupid about shit too. All he does is talk shit on Vinth, and often time looks just as bigoted and ignorant by doing so... i guess he isn't as bad as all the fucks who follow him selflessly, though.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yeah, fuck Max.

[Immortal Goat]

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:SE7GckPTRQ8C:www.frihetsfronten.pp.se/Frihetsfronten/ideologi/ vs. http://www.i-mockery.net/max.jpg
THIS SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY!!!!!

Brought to you by Snickers. Hungry? Why wait?

[mburbank]

I guess I disgusted OAO so much he left.

Or he's home from prep school for the holidays and his folks won't let him use the holiday computer after that whole Milton Freedman Nudy Site fiasco over thanksgiving.

AND FUCK ALL YOU PSYCHOPHANTS WHO FOLLOW ME, FUCKING LOWLIFE CHINK PICANINNY REPUBLICAN GROVER NORQUIST'S COCK SMOKERS! AND FUCK ME TOO!

[Cosmo Electrolux]

OAO's avatar made me hate him...then I read one of his posts...then I hated him all over again.

[FS]

YES, FUCK ALL YOU OLIPHAUNTS

[punkgrrrlie10]

dude...snickers!

[Helm]

This thread turned out alright after all.

[kahljorn]

thank God I posted.

[The One and Only...]

Actually, I couldn't access the computer because I moved.

Still, burbank seems to be dodging the issues here.

Why isn't Objectivism a philosophy? Your opinions on its stupidity aside, it fits the criteria perfectly.

Furthermore, why do you reject Objectivism for, if nothing else, its radical egoism? Hedonistic egoism is a very old philosophy that goes far beyond Objectivism. Indeed, there are three main philosophical forms of hedonism: egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism. Granted, I more or less accept utilitarianism via egoism (which is paradoxical, but that is why I said more or less)... but that is not the point.

I never said that the air pollution thing proves that pollution is getting better, but the other information in the novel - as well as little evidence that suggests the contrary - should speak for itself, not to mention if you apply a little rationalism to the idea.

I'd really like to know exactly when burbank ever made me his bitch, except in some infantile minds who post here.

[camacazio]

I don't understand a word you just said. >:

[Matt Harty]

Then don't come to this forum.

[ziggytrix]

i understood every one of 'em, and i think you're an unnecessarily verbose prick. :)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=8406&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:uF_1D0qC_qsC:iquebec.ifrance.com/hallooween/images/costumes/enfants/furby-noir.jpg

[Protoclown]

One Size Fits All, just come back and read this thread again tomorrow and you will see where Burbank has once again made you his bitch.

[The One and Only...]

I'm not an Objectivist...

[mburbank]

I don't think that matters. Bitch wise I mean.

That being said, I'm quite certain if I made you 'my bitch' it was an unhappy accident.

I have nothing whatever against you thinking Objectivism is a philosiphy. It just means you have a broad deffinition of the word. My objection is that you seem to take it seriously. I may be wrong. If so, you ought to lend equal credence to other worthy philosiphers, like Gene Rodenberry, the guys who do the Chicken Soup for the Soul books and amoral darwinism as espoused by The Punisher.

"I never said that the air pollution thing proves that pollution is getting better, but the other information in the novel - as well as little evidence that suggests the contrary - should speak for itself, not to mention if you apply a little rationalism to the idea. "

You certainly implied it, in your "I'm the cutest li'l provacateur in the senior class!" way. But wait! Novel? Your little crap science factoid came from novel? And now we've whittled the original statement, that the ENVIRONMENT has been getting BETTER since the 1500's, to pollution is getting better (if you mean since the late ninteen-seventies in aggragate, I might even agree) and then to say there's 'little evidence to suggest the contrary' is sad. Simply because the author presents none is no reason... of for Christ's sake. Nuclear waste? The Exxon Valdiz? Love Canal? All the other Superfund sites? The collective auto emissions since the invention of the internal combustion engine? Mercury in fish? Bopal? All of these things are without paralell prior to a century ago. The only way you can get away with a statement like there is ' little evidence that suggests the contrary' is by being quite deliberately vague. 'oh, oh, by 'environment' all I ever really meant were records of coal usage over a portion of one city, that's all I ever said, and there's LITLLE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY'.

[The One and Only...]

I don't understand why you shouldn't take Objectivism seriously. The truth of the matter is that the most rediculous thing about it is assuming that reality is material - which is the metaphysical concept of materialism (opposite of subjective idealism).

Egoism is hardly a concept of Rand. Example of historical hedonistic egoist: Epicurus, who followed in the footsteps of Aristippus.

I'm a freshman.

I was speaking of the environment as a whole, not in specifics. Is there any doubt that pollution has gone down since the Industrial Revolution?

[sspadowsky]

Gee. Never woulda guessed he was a freshman. 'Cause it's totally unlike a freshman to try and flash his supposed intellect by regurgitating the stuff he just learned so he can feel like he's actually applying it.

[mburbank]

When I said Senior I was guessing high school, so I'm hardly off at all.

If by your undefined use of the word 'pollution' you mean coal based emissions over the city of London as defined by it's Industrial Revolution borders, then yes, you are absolutely right. How about if I take an equally arbitrarilly undefined dfinition and say that by pollution, I mean radiocative waste, and instead of London, I use the world. I think then, yes, there is some doubt that pollution has gone down since the Industrial Revolution.

But let me be more reasonable. By any standard at all Ocean Water and Ground water are far more polluted now. Mt. Everest is far more polluted now. All of China, Russia and south America. All of the United states with the possible exceptions of New York, Lowell Mass and a few parts of Pensylvania. What in God's name are you basing this inane assumption on and what are you building into it? Per capita population? Pollutants per person as divided by anual income? What do you mean by the environment as a whole? The biosphere? We did some very nasty things during the Industrial revolution, but there were a lot less of us, and even then the bulk of the world population wasn't industrialized. In addition, we've learned since then many creative new ways to pollute. Chemical pesticides , Gasoline additives, jet fule, oil spills etc.

[The One and Only...]

When I said Senior I was guessing high school, so I'm hardly off at all.

I'm a high school freshman.

If by your undefined use of the word 'pollution' you mean coal based emissions over the city of London as defined by it's Industrial Revolution borders, then yes, you are absolutely right. How about if I take an equally arbitrarilly undefined dfinition and say that by pollution, I mean radiocative waste, and instead of London, I use the world. I think then, yes, there is some doubt that pollution has gone down since the Industrial Revolution.

By pollution, I mean the total amount of all harmful substances released into the environment by humans.

I do not see how such a belief could possibly continue.

What in God's name are you basing this inane assumption on and what are you building into it? Per capita population?

Precisely. Obviously greater population = greater pollution. My point is that it is not the fault of technology, since it is actually getting cleaner.

[mburbank]

Wow. A highschool Freshman. Does the Guiness book of records know about you? The very idea that a highschool freshman could be this arrogant.

I have to stop. For the very first time I have actually run into someone simply too young for me to beat up on. It's absolutely pathetic.

Listen to me. If this is true and not just some lie to make me feel ill, for the sake of your soul, change. Get some sunlight, date, go to the movies, anything. A highschool freshman should not know who Milton Friedman IS. A highscool freshman should giggle when he hears the word Laissez Faire because it's not only sort of dirty like Masticate and lake Titi Caka, it's sophisticated. Slow down. Relax. Take a deep breath. Be a kid, it's not going to last very much longer.

[Brandon]

Listen to me. If this is true and not just some lie to make me feel ill, for the sake of your soul, change. Get some sunlight, date, go to the movies, anything. A highschool freshman should not know who Milton Friedman IS. A highscool freshman should giggle when he hears the word Laissez Faire because it's not only sort of dirty like Masticate and lake Titi Caka, it's sophisticated. Slow down. Relax. Take a deep breath. Be a kid, it's not going to last very much longer.
Wonder if One Ring to Rule Them All has seen this thread:
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=8406

[Jeanette X]

I do not see how such a belief could possibly continue.


What a Vince thing to say. Just like "If you disagree with me, you are misinformed.", which is one of his pearls of wisdom.

[The One and Only...]

You are putting words in my mouth. All I said was that I DO NOT SEE how that belief could continue.

[Helm]

Now this thread has gone downhill again :(

[Dole]

Jesus that boy needs to get laid. Or beaten up. Probably both.

[Vibecrewangel]

Uh-huh Uh Huh-huh-huh Max said Titi Caka Uh-huh Uh Huh-huh-huh

[AChimp]

I knew grease monkeys in the power mechanics department when I was in high school who had more common sense than OAO, and these are people who enjoyed having sword fights with wrenches. Sad, sad, sad, sad.

[Command Prompt]

:rolleyes

[AChimp]

I bet you were one of them, psych boy. >:

[Perndog]

Epicurus was not a hedonist. He defined pleasure as the avoidance of pain, and that's what he advocated, not wild indulgence.

Just thought I'd mention that.

[Helm]

That's what hedonism basically is, satan boy. Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, but he basically weighed out the pros and cons of any given indulgence, and social profit or lack thereof, was a big factor towards control. Hedonism as overindulgence in vice is a popular but mistaken application of the word. Much like how idealism is commonly and mistakenly used to protray as a characteristic, he who adheres to high-minded ideals, whereas idealism truly is an ontological philosophy adhering to the premise that there is an ideal, static world which we fail to fully comprehend, due to sensory limitation. In many ways opposite to materialism. But it's good enough that an american knows who Epicuros is, so I shouldn't complain.

[The One and Only...]

Actually, idealism is a very broad metaphysical view that holds that all reality is made up of ideas. Essentially, the view maintains that there is no matter, only the mind. It is the opposite of materialism because it maintains that there is no mind, only matter.

A good example of a subjective idealist would be Berkley.

[mburbank]

I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.

[kellychaos]

OAO needs a time-out! >:

[Brandon]

Actually, idealism is a very broad metaphysical view that holds that all reality is made up of ideas. Essentially, the view maintains that there is no matter, only the mind. It is the opposite of materialism because it maintains that there is no mind, only matter.

A good example of a subjective idealist would be Berkley.
Most Idealists acknowledge the existence of a material world, but they find it vastly inferior to their static, unchanging "true world" of ideas that is reached through rational thought.

AND BY THE WAY, HOW DID THIS THREAD REACH A DISCUSSION ABOUT IDEALISM/MATERIALISM/HEDONISM? Must every thread be dominated and mutated by OAO?

[The One and Only...]

Most Idealists acknowledge the existence of a material world, but they find it vastly inferior to their static, unchanging "true world" of ideas that is reached through rational thought.

WRONG. NO idealist acknowledges a material world. Many acknowledge an objective, existing world, but they do not believe that it is material.

AND BY THE WAY, HOW DID THIS THREAD REACH A DISCUSSION ABOUT IDEALISM/MATERIALISM/HEDONISM? Must every thread be dominated and mutated by OAO?

Considering I did post it...

[Brandon]

Considering I did post it...
Yeah, but you can't even stick to the subject of your own threads.

[The One and Only...]

So?

[Brandon]

So?
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

HEY EVERYBODY! WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM?

[The One and Only...]

Why not quantum mechanics?

I HOLD THAT THE UNIVERSE IS STILL DETERMINISTIC BY NATURE, AND SUPPORT EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF HIDDEN VARIABLES!!! SCREW THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION!!!

[mburbank]

I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.

[The One and Only...]

I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids.I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids.I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids.I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids. I will not make fun of older kids.

[mburbank]

I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.

[The One and Only...]

I'm sorry Max, but you can't win me over with such flirtations. :(

[Helm]

WRONG. NO idealist acknowledges a material world. Many acknowledge an objective, existing world, but they do not believe that it is material.


COCK. Most idealists agree there's a material world, but they make simple arguments about how the sensory input a human recieves from it is prone to error (one hand in cold water, one in warm and then both in a basin of lukewarm water etc etc) and thusly not to be trusted. The whole premise of Idealism is that one can only truly understand and experience something in the realm of ideas. Read some Plato and stop trying to be a smartass. You don't know everything. Read 'The Cave of Ideas' in Socrates' dialogue with Protagoras and then you can claim to have an oppinion on Idealism. And don't use CAPITALISED WORDS for EMPHASIS it only makes you look STUPID.

[Perndog]

That's what hedonism basically is, satan boy. Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, but he basically weighed out the pros and cons of any given indulgence, and social profit or lack thereof, was a big factor towards control. Hedonism as overindulgence in vice is a popular but mistaken application of the word. Much like how idealism is commonly and mistakenly used to protray as a characteristic, he who adheres to high-minded ideals, whereas idealism truly is an ontological philosophy adhering to the premise that there is an ideal, static world which we fail to fully comprehend, due to sensory limitation. In many ways opposite to materialism. But it's good enough that an american knows who Epicuros is, so I shouldn't complain.

I was mistaken about Epicurus (now that I've done some homework) - he actually was an egoistic hedonist. He thought a simple and virtuous life and the limiting of desires (rather than their indulgence) was the best path to pleasure, though, which is the information I was going on. I had a hard time reconciling hedonism with the kind of ascetic life Epicurus advocated.

And I do know what hedonism is; I claim to be a hedonist myself.

*waits for the predictable response*

[Drew Katsikas]

If philosophies and moral standards are based off human feeling/passion/emotion etc.. does anyone feel that expressing opinions and beliefs about such things are lost with such jargon as objective idealistic material subjective hedonistic metaphysical? Reading all your posts is like a some kind of annyoing pedantic code. >:

[Perndog]

It's not pedantic if there aren't better words to use and everyone in the discussion understands them. It's easier to say "hedonism" than "philosophy based on seeking pleasure," easier to say "subjective" than "something that is different from one person to another," and easier to say "metaphysical" than "outside the realm of physics." Jargon is created to label things in order to make discussion less wordy and easier to understand; if you don't get the words, read a damn dictionary. Or propose a better way to do it.

[Drew Katsikas]

granted, they are convenient in many cases, and I know what they all mean, but sometimes they drive you away from the point. Example: Hedonism, is a philosophy on acting out of almost animal instinct, a looking out for # 1 ideal. When you load your discussions about this with objective idealistic metaphysical etc, and you yourself are a hedonist, your partaking in a very formal sophisticated activity, rather than the primitive or rather, as some poeple may see it, counter-productive stance you hold. It just seems slightly paradoxical.

[Perndog]

I wasn't in on the discussion of metaphysics, objectivism, and idealism in this thread. But regardless..

How is posting on a message board about philosophy or doing anything formal and sophisticated counter-productive to pleasure? Maybe it pleases me to discuss these things.

[Drew Katsikas]

yeah, I'm streching it. I'm associating hedonism with a sort of primitive anti-community anti-productive sentiment.

[Perndog]

That'd be social nihilism. Another fun jargon term for you. :)

[Helm]

..and it would be misleading for you to do so because whereas hedonism is inherently atavistic, it does depend on social structure in order to fully exploit a wider spectrum of pleasure. As to your original question, DrewKatsikas, no, I do not feel using proper terminology when dealing with philosophy harms one's point in any way. Language is faulty enough a method of communication as it is without having to dumb down one's vocabulary. As long as we'e using the same definitions for our philosophical terms, then we're going to be okay. For example, your definition of hedonism below is faulty in many ways. What you described more likely is some sort of nonholistic egoism. I suggest research on your part.

egoistic hedonism

As if there's some other sort ?... I do not see how you were confused.

[Perndog]

I wasn't aware at first that Epicurus's simple ascetic lifestyle could qualify as hedonism.

[Helm]

There's nothing ascetic about epicuros :O

[Perndog]

My sources must be misinformed then; this one (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/epicur.htm) says he favored a "moderately ascetic life" and this one (http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/ier.html) refers to the satisfaction of basic needs and the indulgence in luxuries only so long as they are readily available.

"...in our present lives we need only live a simple life..." (http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/epiu.htm)

[Helm]

The choice of words is misleading. Ascetic suggests that one chooses not to indulge his basic instincts. Epicuros did nothing of the sort. Anyway, by bad I guess since I was just going by the popula definition of ascetisism :rolleyes

[Drew Katsikas]

Well, Helm, I'm saying, now that I've been enlightened by Pern, wouldn't it be more sensible if you were a so called social-nihilist to say, rather than "I'm a social nihilist", "I do what I fucking want?"

[Helm]

No because even if the two were the same (they aren't) the fact that you choose to use such a definition suggests historical and philosophical semiotic value the layman statement doesn't. For example, for me when a person says "I am the only one that exists", it is quite different from a person that says "I am a solipsist" even for the simple fact that the latter is more likely to be familiar with the finer points of said philosophical concept, since he can name it.

But the more important reason remains that no philosophical concept can be summed up in a layman-friendly concise sentence.

[ziggytrix]

Can too!

[Protoclown]

Yeah!

[The One and Only...]

egoistic hedonism

As if there's some other sort ?... I do not see how you were confused.

There are three main forms of hedonism: egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism.

Egoism is a doctrine that says it is moral to try to maximize your pleasure.

Utilitarianism is a doctrine that says it is moral to try to maximize the pleasure of everyone.

Altruism is a doctrine that says it is moral to try to maximize the pleasure of others.

The distinction between utilitarians and altruists is major, because utilitarians always count themselves as one.

Plato, while having a large impact on idealism, was not an idealist at all. Idealism's true progenator was Berkley. Idealism is necessarily a monistic view which claims that all reality is mental. Definition of idealism. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idealism)

[Protoclown]

Seriously, dude. Get a girlfriend.

Or hell, just a friend.

[Buffalo Tom]

Seriously, dude. Get a girlfriend.

Or hell, just a friend.

I get the feeling he looks and dresses like George Will. Weenie. >:

[Helm]

Please do not post philosophical definitions you found on dictionary.com. Dictionary.com provides uses of words. Which are not always corect.

From the same site:
2. Persuit of one's ideals
Not right.

Why don't you consult your philosophical dictionary? Or get one?

As to Plato I strongly urge you to actually read at least some of his dialogues (I suggest Politia for some of the best and worst of his work) before telling me he's not an idealist.

Obviously modern idealism has progressed (or fractioned, as many would say) into various forms.

Edit: slash

[Zhukov]

Please do not post philosophical definitions you found on dictionary.com. Dictionary.com provides uses of words. Which are not always corect.


In one ear and out the other...

[The One and Only...]

Why don't you consult your philosophical dictionary? Or get one?

From my college-level philosophy course textbook:

Idealism: In metaphysics, the theory that all reality consists of mind and its ideas.

Plato: (427-347 B.C.) The first great systematic or synoptic philosopher whose work survives in real quantity, propounder of transcendent Forms (or essences) as the absolute realities which are imperfectly mirrored by things in the sensible world and are known through the intellect alone.

Note the very, very, very major differences in idealism and Plato's philosophy.

[Brandon]

Why don't you consult your philosophical dictionary? Or get one?

From my college-level philosophy course textbook:

Idealism: In metaphysics, the theory that all reality consists of mind and its ideas.

Plato: (427-347 B.C.) The first great systematic or synoptic philosopher whose work survives in real quantity, propounder of transcendent Forms (or essences) as the absolute realities which are imperfectly mirrored by things in the sensible world and are known through the intellect alone.

Note the very, very, very major differences in idealism and Plato's philosophy.
Plato was the FOUNDER of Idealism, you shmuck. And I don't really see the major differences in the two definitions, either.

[The One and Only...]

(Bashes head against wall repeatedly)

[Supafly345]

Note the very, very, very major differences in idealism and Plato's philosophy.How about you note them first. Just because you stuck two texts from your college-level book side by side doesn't mean you have made a point.

But Plato wasn't an idealist, to the best of my knowledge. I remember Marx (Marks?) was. But I don't remember similarities between them.

Plus this is stupid and I don't care.

[Helm]

Mercy! Marx was a dialectic materialist!

[AChimp]

From my college-level philosophy course textbook:
I don't know whether to call you a fag or a nerd.

[The One and Only...]

I pointed out that it was college level so you wouldn't shout out crap like "STOP TAKING WORDS OUT OF DICTIONARIES!!!"

Plato did not think that that the Forms were made up of ideas themselves. He just thought that the Forms could only be known through the intellect. Thus, we see the difference.

[kahljorn]

"Look he knows what he's talking about; he must be a bigger loser than me who wastes his time actually posting intelligent shit rather than posting useless shit over and over again"

[Protoclown]

Listen One Size Fits All, you really need to stop taking words out of your college level philosophy book.

[sspadowsky]

This thread is still here?