It is not mine to judge here how much I am good as a philosopher. But I presume to me to say that there is a veritable philosopher in the German language space at least. Because it is unlikely that reader Lisa has fooled me for so long and in reality but a man.
Yes, Lisa, so you have to live now, me too, who knows who that account laughs at me, that I so now external. But I wrote it not here, I would not be very sure you verkraftest that. And do not take as flattery. There is none. It's about another. Not only about what is in the next sentence, which will capture most reasonably easily.
For me personally, Your work is a liberation. Not only because my wife was not just the stupidest bugged me for years the chatter of other men that women are not fit for philosophy, just not applied for it. I was never able to identify a reasonable, even compelling reason.
Why should a woman can not think in depth, want?
And it is rare (as often is because in men?), Why not?
It's like as if to say, men should take not much for children.
Who knows this site knows that I reject any Geschlechtergleichmacherei hard. It is inhuman to me, belongs to the latter, which I will fight as long as I stand.
But to define the love of wisdom as a male, also the ability to printouts thereof, that may be me as Halbwüchsigem perhaps could have reasonably sing, so I parroted it: but long gone.
And here it is me, mind you, not "medium", "Healer", "witch", nor even what some believe in "Wise Woman"; no! - I say, philosopher!
Do I have to explain the difference?
Probably. So I have to still pay something to the definition crafts yet.
It's about the serious intellectual engagement with fundamental issues and then to the formation of the ability to lessons learned to grasp intelligible and explain. At its like, to be collected with passion like mind. To see a significant part of one's life fulfilled it. Themselves as ultimately the humanity within the meaning of knowledge weiterzuhelfen persistently seek not to be regarded as vain.
I mentioned here several times linguistics as the queen of the sciences. But philosophy is the fruit of the womb of the queen.
I was with Lisa often disagree. And sometimes quite fundamentally. But it has repeatedly shown the size that you women often rightly deny, I do not resent too sharp contradiction. Again quietly insist their views clear to explain. No vanity fair.
Sometimes only short sentences, without further explanation, although not in all contexts correctly, but since, including spoken, to the point. A rare degree of reflection, of linguistic precision. Yes, so that I wished this kind frequently by men. But too often the mute and the Beisichsein and thus the understanding and therefore also the clear, striking prints left.
Enough of speech.
Joy.
- Advertisement -
Tags: Lisa , philosophers
I can only agree, apart from the fact that I consider the spiritual philosophy than the Queen, whereby, however, the science of language is its always benevolent right hand.
Because linguistics is 'only' the transport of the Queen, without which, selbige ziemich lost would stand there within the multidimensional quantum computer. ;-)
Lisa is a MeisterphilosophIN with a spiritual background to the highest levels.
A self is retarded manner in the clear awareness of the essence of being and life. :-)
Lisa
Will think 'about time that you report at Magnus.
;-)
@ Dude
I see the linguistics (philology) continue as queen of the sciences.
Poetry means poetry and not sealing science, because they. Not a science but an art
And philosophy, the love of wisdom is also not a science but an art.
So is it "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", the work in which these two arts are an integrated unit than in any other, just not a scientific language known to me.
However, what "spiritual philosophy" is, except a questionable tautology, you have to tell me first.
As should be mindless philosophy because philosophy?
Or I have "spiritual" "mentally" translated wrong with?
The explain to me then please philological.
(Although I recognize that "spiritual" by many people more impression makes as "spiritual" but not with me but, I also do not know why I would have blown twice as many syllables in a foreign word when it comes to signifier, a German for the . gives, however, is to admit you have actually done that "spiritual", although, or perhaps because there is no reasonable to nouns in German - "alcohol" is ethanol with Gällstoff - as "spirit" to "mentally" has acquired a slightly different connotation for many, a loftier, holier than "spiritual" Although this is a Riesenunfug, but that buzzes and schwurbelt the word everywhere It may even have quite a synonym for a change, his place;.. often but, if not most, it is a Backenaufblaswort, Recommended by mystics and charlatans who seek thus to impress, if not as fast as possible to the Penunze to German, monosyllabic, to the people's money.)
No, no laughter. I'm really a woman. But is it really so rare that women also want to think? Vimala Thakar example, wrote very interesting things, such as "Awakening to Total Revolution"
http://globalresonance.net/passage.cfm?psg=100149
I would not call myself a philosopher in the classical sense. For this purpose I lack erudition. What I want is to link the esoteric with the exoteric and the. Not in any mystical terms, but in no uncertain terms Sometimes I succeed, sometimes not ...
@ Lisa
"I would not call myself a philosopher in the classical sense. For this purpose I lack erudition. "
Well, I inalsoweit see myself as a philosopher, then, whether a lack of erudition, not even as a in the classical sense. So I have thoroughly studied neither Aristotle nor Kant nor Hegel, various other "Large" is not. Let alone the so-called Frankfurt School ...
Under "experts" I would be so soon as a Möchtergern, a chatterbox, unmasked, has not read many of the most important works.
But that itches me not give a damn. Because, without intending to sit here in comparison Confucius the works of the three Called also had not read with certainty, and he found it still quite a Useful.
A friend who had studied at the well-renowned philosophy faculty in Germany, told me once, there was Nietzsche - the one even now lack of erudition really can not complain - was not recognized as a true philosopher, so how about A. and K. and H.
Why? - Because Nietzsche did indeed leave anything releasing, but not systematically closed plant.
It's even more stupid?
Since I was again more clearly that I had done well to study linguistics and literature, rather than grapple me with such impotent eggheads, most of which is not even in her entire life to bring a handful of good own aphorisms. With which it would have only been trouble until that they had kicked me out or I voluntarily pulled leash. (Nietzsche once said that he does not trust basically all taxonomists, hehe.)
With your concept to use as simple, clear words, which you were certainly not noticed low. In a reference to it - we take again the example, at least I know a little more detail - Confucius had not expressed particularly complicated, always sought the greatest possible simplicity and clarity would be entgegengeschollen you about: "Oh, Madame Confucian hold apparently for Hermesina Trismegista "
Short supplements yet. I write here, too occasionally on linguistic topics. And indeed, I think, so that even an interested layman can understand with medium education, as I say, at most times here and there to look up an unknown word. Therefore, the relevant texts are not necessarily inane or irrelevant. (First make course sometimes better, sometimes less; once the content is overweight, sometimes less.)
After all, I mean, did it make you not stupid studied, learned rather independent thinking; and I presume to me to say this also from me.
Here I go - turns it is not aphorisms or parables - usually "overly intellectual" theory of things zoom than you. (Maybe I have, alas, but too much studying?)
Either way: Everyone needs to develop the style that fits his character, his views and his important content, to what he wants to convey.
[...] Term "stupid studied" today was the occasion of a comment back on, after he had already been pretty basic in this article [...]
@ Lisa
I import times exemplified here, what you just now to "From the Wisdom" adjustment test:
'I assume that a "wise man" dominates his thoughts and feelings. Without this control it would not be wise. Also, the "passing" secondary. He (or she, of course) can be a (shining) example and anyone who wants can take over or be inspired by it. More you can not actually do.
Also, I assume that everything is subjective. Only a wise man be "all inclusive" - it is the whole. It includes everything, without a conviction (as it were the observers), but will only choose the things that please him. Children, before they are "socialized", very wise ...
Enlightenment would be perhaps a state in which nothing more needs to be "done", since everything is settled, he just-lights. It is. '
Yes, a philosopher is already there.
In this I was not mistaken.
Some of you seemed to me, of radical subjectivism 'sake, first clarified to a supposed cold. This went even so far that I do you right rancid asked if because children in your cosmos vorkämen at all.
Meanwhile, I try not only mentally, but also to learn the language from you.
I chat, sometimes expliziere too much. Anyway, when it comes to such basic mental things. This is not wise.
Perhaps to some extent a teacher syndrome.
However, I try - of the few who read here comparatively - fairly understandable as many as possible to achieve. In addition, it is with comments something else, because if you wrote a separate article.
Nevertheless, I think my approach. Because it may not be rare "wise" to let the reader from the outset more freedom to think for themselves. Simple and really talk, without the bells and whistles. Without fuss. (The "no fuss" was now perhaps already too much., But I let it stand times. Redundancy principle. Teacher halt. Saying everything three times.)
Good or bad: I am the effect still divided. Undecided. But at least the awareness is already sharpened again.
There is basically no mistake, things to explain perspectives. But when, who, how, what for?
It's about the measure. Therefore, whatever you want.
And yet, I find it's also about the takeaway. Yet also similar as before.
For sure I will but my way of writing at least partly change.
@ Lisa
(Addendum)
I have just noticed in the Nachreflexion that I myself also still detained in the women-can-no-philosophy-think (was).
Because I was wondering initially unaware of what that meant, because as a woman could have such an effect on my thinking, I do not even know personally. (So that she might have twisted my other than linguistic means the head.)
What a load of nonsense. When a man I would have simply said that I was just pushed to my happiness and my inspiration once again to one that had to tell me things that I do not yet registered so.
But cursed too!
The damn prejudice runs deep. Now it reached me but. This is no longer so easily happen to me.
And it happened to me, although I had spoken with the mother of my children truly not only about recipes.
The man's fear of the clever woman. Pathetic.
So a Erzstuss.
The part thoroughly abolished.