Forums

Fischer vs. Kasparov

Sort:
theoreticalboy

Wow, he still completely missed the point.  Why are you bringing artistry into the discussion, nemo?

(and by the way, the "total subjectivity" canard is a complete falsehood.  Y'all should read some Adorno and all that jazz)

nameno1had
theoreticalboy wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
theoreticalboy wrote:

Oh wow, you really haven't comprehended, at all.

I'm asking, seeing as you keep claiming this "wisdom of the elders" canard, do you believe yourself to be possessing of greater wisdom than Keats and Rimbaud?

I am far wiser than both...they are dead...

Actually, they are alive through the vital force of the words they have given over to posterity; the only true immortality to exist.

Go ask them each to share their wisdom with about your specific personal problems...I won't hold my breath or bother waiting for you to tell us verbatim, of the conversation...

chesspooljuly13
netzach wrote:
chesspooljuly13 wrote:

How does one get everything you listed? Money, right? Money pays for water, sleep, indoor plumbing, security, the likelihood of finding a spouse, etc., etc. 

hehe Dunno why I find that funny. Just do ! 

Didn't think someone with a 137 IQ would need this explained to them but water costs money, sleep normally requires a mattress or couch and women aren't likely to marry someone who lacks the basic necessities of life.

Clear now?

theoreticalboy

Verbatim, not verbatin.  And I don't need to have an actual conversation with them, I can let their words speak to my soul.

chesspooljuly13
netzach wrote:

C-13PO seems to think money can buy you anything but new-brain is a tricky one !

Clever, nutsack. But you'll never make it in stand-up comedy

chesspooljuly13
ilikeflags wrote:

chesspoo's love of money will get him a lot, but when jesus returns, it won't get him a cheeseburger.

Where did I ever say I loved money? I said it was necessary in today's world to provide the basic necessities of life. Try to keep up.

 

chesspooljuly13
zborg wrote:

So a free lance writer has "money on his mind."  No surprises there.

Has this latest chapter of The Young and Restless come to a close?  One hopes. 

Only reason I started writing about money was when someone claimed it wasn't needed to live a fulfilling life. Such an absurd claim deserved to be refuted. Nice attempt at a smear job, but, like your other pals, you missed the mark yet again. Try taking off your blindfold lol

chesspooljuly13
bigpoison wrote:

I thought "avarice" was the root of all evil, according to the old story.

 

Avarice is just another word for greed which is just another word for love of money (among other things.) So it's just saying the same thing using a different word

bigpoison
theoreticalboy wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
theoreticalboy wrote:

Oh wow, you really haven't comprehended, at all.

I'm asking, seeing as you keep claiming this "wisdom of the elders" canard, do you believe yourself to be possessing of greater wisdom than Keats and Rimbaud?

I am far wiser than both...they are dead...

Actually, they are alive through the vital force of the words they have given over to posterity; the only true immortality to exist.

Can't agree with that one theo'.  It, too, will cease to exist eventually.

nameno1had
theoreticalboy wrote:

Wow, he still completely missed the point.  Why are you bringing artistry into the discussion, nemo?

(and by the way, the "total subjectivity" canard is a complete falsehood.  Y'all should read some Adorno and all that jazz)

If you fail to see the artistry of any artform, while making a comparison or asking a potential comparison, based on someone's opinion, isn't rather insulting to the artists involved( not giving myself any credit as an artist by my statement either)?

chesspooljuly13
theoreticalboy wrote:

chesspool seems unaware of the fact that all of the truths he is referring to are human constructs, and so not really truths at all.  We can combine his two obsessions to demonstrate this nicely; as I stated earlier, money has no intrinsic value: it is an expression of exchange value, and also (almost without exception) a demonstration of a particular set of power relations.  Both of these things are constantly in flux, defined by the obsessions of the particular era in which they find expression.

With this in mind, we can alter the expression "it is true that money is necessary" to say "it is true that the current structures of power and exchange are necessary."  This is an obvious falsehood, as one can easily imagine alternate systems; Grobe pointed out examples of peoples living under a completely different system even in this world.

I'm taking the metaphysical road, so of course one may say that earning money is important within our current structures, and I would have few qualms with this as a practical piece of advice; however, even then it is semantically ambiguous, as really what one is saying that it is important to be able to acquire necessities, and money is the construct that is most often used to this end.  It still remains that as a pursuit it has no value in and of itself.

So what of the truth?  Nietzsche demonstrated quite conclusively that our value/ethical systems are quite arbitrary and always subject to change across eras in The Genealogy of Morals, so why should we assume that there is a singular truth that anyone has access to?  In fact, I would posit that truth is as much a product of structures of power as taboos are, and the false truth of money lends itself to this conclusion.

I don't believe in God; chesspool does, so he probably beleives that he has access to a singular truth.  One thing puzzles me about this though; if one is truly searching for a singular truth, shouldn't one renounce all religions, belief systems, value judgments etc, even if only to return to them after experiencing the nothingness of being?  An impossible task for any human, surely, but the only effective way of discerning if there is a universal truth, as proceeding along a linear line that many have already traversed clearly only leads one to accept the compromised judgments of history.

 

Prove your point - spend the next year - heck half a year, til the end of 2012 - without spending a penny. You won't last a week.

Your wordy post is full of theory but is irrelevant in practical terms. If you disagree, as I said, see if you can spend the rest of 2012 without spending any money. Let us know how it goes.

ilikeflags

do you guys think nemo has the ability to recognise that he's embarrassing himself?  is the safety net of the internet and remaining anonymous enough for him not to care?  i honestly don't think he's smart enough to get it.  

ilikeflags
chesspooljuly13 wrote:
theoreticalboy wrote:

chesspool seems unaware of the fact that all of the truths he is referring to are human constructs, and so not really truths at all.  We can combine his two obsessions to demonstrate this nicely; as I stated earlier, money has no intrinsic value: it is an expression of exchange value, and also (almost without exception) a demonstration of a particular set of power relations.  Both of these things are constantly in flux, defined by the obsessions of the particular era in which they find expression.

With this in mind, we can alter the expression "it is true that money is necessary" to say "it is true that the current structures of power and exchange are necessary."  This is an obvious falsehood, as one can easily imagine alternate systems; Grobe pointed out examples of peoples living under a completely different system even in this world.

I'm taking the metaphysical road, so of course one may say that earning money is important within our current structures, and I would have few qualms with this as a practical piece of advice; however, even then it is semantically ambiguous, as really what one is saying that it is important to be able to acquire necessities, and money is the construct that is most often used to this end.  It still remains that as a pursuit it has no value in and of itself.

So what of the truth?  Nietzsche demonstrated quite conclusively that our value/ethical systems are quite arbitrary and always subject to change across eras in The Genealogy of Morals, so why should we assume that there is a singular truth that anyone has access to?  In fact, I would posit that truth is as much a product of structures of power as taboos are, and the false truth of money lends itself to this conclusion.

I don't believe in God; chesspool does, so he probably beleives that he has access to a singular truth.  One thing puzzles me about this though; if one is truly searching for a singular truth, shouldn't one renounce all religions, belief systems, value judgments etc, even if only to return to them after experiencing the nothingness of being?  An impossible task for any human, surely, but the only effective way of discerning if there is a universal truth, as proceeding along a linear line that many have already traversed clearly only leads one to accept the compromised judgments of history.

 

Prove your point - spend the next year - heck half a year, til the end of 2012 - without spending a penny. You won't last a week.

Your wordy post is full of theory but is irrelevant in practical terms. If you disagree, as I said, see if you can spend the rest of 2012 without spending any money. Let us know how it goes.

obviously chesspoo hasn't figure the whole quoting thing out yet.  and imagine this -- he also missed theo's point.  these 2 really are so much alike.  although chesspoo is more articulate than nemo.

nameno1had
ilikeflags wrote:

do you guys think nemo has the ability to recognise that he's embarrassing himself?  is the safety net of the internet and remaining anonymous enough for him not to care?  i honestly don't think he's smart enough to get it.  

I am not ashamed of my actions...I am certainly not in fear on any consequences with regard to them...are the thought police going to show up at my door?

ilikeflags

oh, you thought i was looking for a statement from you?  no, sorry.

nameno1had
theoreticalboy wrote:

Verbatim, not verbatin.  And I don't need to have an actual conversation with them, I can let their words speak to my soul.

I have big hands and laptop keyboards are difficult for me...

bigpoison
chesspooljuly13 wrote:
bigpoison wrote:

I thought "avarice" was the root of all evil, according to the old story.

 

Avarice is just another word for greed which is just another word for love of money (among other things.) So it's just saying the same thing using a different word

Nope.  Wrong again.  If we have three cupcakes between the two of us and you scarf down one very quickly so you can beat me to the third one, is that not greed?  Money's got nothin' to do with it.

nameno1had
ilikeflags wrote:

oh, you thought i was looking for a statement from you?  no, sorry.

But I love giving it right back to you...I thought you liked this flags...

netzach
chesspooljuly13 wrote:
netzach wrote:
chesspooljuly13 wrote:

How does one get everything you listed? Money, right? Money pays for water, sleep, indoor plumbing, security, the likelihood of finding a spouse, etc., etc. 

hehe Dunno why I find that funny. Just do ! 

Didn't think someone with a 137 IQ would need this explained to them but water costs money, sleep normally requires a mattress or couch and women aren't likely to marry someone who lacks the basic necessities of life.

Clear now?

Your actually totally wrong there. Where I live water comes from a private-spring (enough to supply entire farm) & I do not pay a nickel or dime for it.

Additonally I do not pay to sleep, nor do I buy wives...

chesspooljuly13

theoretical boy seems to be saying truth doesn't exist (hard to tell - all those big words got me confused:)

So, saying the sun is hot isn't really a truth because it depends on degree? After all, next to a hotter star, the sun could be described as cool, right? Saying the sun rises in the east isn't a truth because the east is a directional construct of man that just as easily could have been labeled west? Saying being shot is painful isn't a truth because pain is relative? Saying I'm typing on the computer isn't a truth because how can I be sure this reality really exists and i'm not actually dreaming?

Wow, you can play that game forever. Descartes did a long time ago and came to the conclusion that one truth existed - his own existence because he was capable of thought - "I think therefore I am" - so at least we know there is that truth (unless you want to refute Descartes.)

Value systems are relative and subject to change? Maybe for you. Not for me. I don't need to experience "nothingness" to know The Truth exists.

This forum topic has been locked