|
Post by aquacultured on Oct 24, 2018 23:54:05 GMT 1
If you don't have a clue what I'm on about, don't pretend I've said something I haven't.
As for your claim that I claimed to have been a 'consultant to the public sector', show me it.
And I'm perfectly aware of what Sartre and de Beauvoir were getting at, thank you. Not that anyone cares these days, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Oct 25, 2018 0:00:55 GMT 1
Oh! I think I get what you're trying to express, with your as usual sub-minimal effort. You mean you thought the timing reference I gave was referring to hours, rather than minutes. Yes? You imagined, even though you'd actually watched the program, and it's not an unfamiliar part of the BBC schedule, after forty or so years, that Question Time might run for over two hours, with one guest speaking for that length of time, and so you were befuddled as to what I might be referring to. Is that right? We're to conclude from this that you are in fact suffering from quite severe dementia? No, I thought you might've got the time notation wrong. (Look I've apologised already, so why not let it go?) I hope you don't treat everybody you think has dementia, like that.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 25, 2018 0:22:10 GMT 1
If you don't have a clue what I'm on about, don't pretend I've said something I haven't. No, you're confused. I don't "pretend" or "play tricks". You just don't communicate what you mean. I assume you think you do, with the minimal use of words - letters even - that you guess are required. I'd guess this is because you imagine you're more intelligent than us normal folks, and you don't need to lower yourself to condascend to speak proper English in communicating with us? I asked if you'd ever been a "consultant" for a private company, business, or person. Understandably, you declined to respond. Because you weren't, were you? No private business would waste money in that way. Then use the term properly! That you're aware of what Sartre and Camus meant makes your misuse of language even worse! No - you don't care. Plenty of us do.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 25, 2018 0:29:19 GMT 1
Oh! I think I get what you're trying to express, with your as usual sub-minimal effort. You mean you thought the timing reference I gave was referring to hours, rather than minutes. Yes? You imagined, even though you'd actually watched the program, and it's not an unfamiliar part of the BBC schedule, after forty or so years, that Question Time might run for over two hours, with one guest speaking for that length of time, and so you were befuddled as to what I might be referring to. Is that right? We're to conclude from this that you are in fact suffering from quite severe dementia? No, I thought you might've got the time notation wrong. (Look I've apologised already, so why not let it go?) I missed the apology, sorry. Not that I was asking for one, if it was ever given. What I was asking for was how on earth you respond to this basic essential point of Michael Dobbs. Dobbs expressed it, that is, with admirable concision - but over 17 million people voted for its rationale. I don't think you do have dementia. I think you're just almost incredibly lazy, elitist, and self-satisfied - so much so that you can hardly be bothered to even speak intelligibly to anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Oct 25, 2018 0:36:21 GMT 1
If you don't have a clue what I'm on about, don't pretend I've said something I haven't. No, you're confused. I don't "pretend" or "play tricks". You just don't communicate what you mean. I assume you think you do, with the minimal use of words - letters even - that you guess are required. I'd guess this is because you imagine you're more intelligent than us normal folks, and you don't need to lower yourself to condascend to speak proper English in communicating with us? I asked if you'd ever been a "consultant" for a private company, business, or person. Understandably, you declined to respond. Because you weren't, were you? No private business would waste money in that way. Then use the term properly! That you're aware of what Sartre and Camus meant makes your misuse of language even worse! No - you don't care. Plenty of us do. Bad faith, again, then. ie, making things up to traduce someone else. You say you asked if you'd ever been a "consultant" for a private company, business, or person. Understandably, you declined to respond. Because you weren't, were you? No private business would waste money in that way. If you did so ask, which I don't remember, I would've answered 'yes', as that's the truth. What's the issue? Ah, you've brought Camus in to replace de Beauvoir. A bit risky, surely. Heretical as it may be, I regard Camus as a great novelist, and Sartre as a philosopher, indebted to de Beauvoir.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 25, 2018 0:53:45 GMT 1
Bad faith, again, then. N0o - misuse of the term, again. You don't in fact understand what it means, do you? How and why is it then that you've come to use it so liberally? No - that's not what it means. It's not even close. It's a travesty of what it means. None that matters to me. You have these amazing Iron Man skills, taught to you by your service in the Government, evidently, which private people and businesses are very eager to tap. Good for you. Then you're uneducated, and, worse, you've never investigated yourself - which raises the question why on earth you'd be using concepts peculiar to them? None of them were philosophers. Philosophically, none of them were worth a spit. But Camus was a great novelist - de Beauvoir not so much, though she had a place in the history of "feminism" no doubt. Sartre was a superb novelist - beyond great. I don't know what he was - something almost demonic. I say that because I don't want to give the impression I value him as anything positive. A bit like Napoleon.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Oct 25, 2018 1:04:51 GMT 1
Bad faith, again, then. N0o - misuse of the term, again. You don't in fact understand what it means, do you? How and why is it then that you've come to use it so liberally? No - that's not what it means. It's not even close. It's a travesty of what it means. None that matters to me. You have these amazing Iron Man skills, taught to you by your service in the Government, evidently, which private people and businesses are very eager to tap. Good for you. Then you're uneducated, and, worse, you've never investigated yourself - which raises the question why on earth you'd be using concepts peculiar to them? None of them were philosophers. Philosophically, none of them were worth a spit. But Camus was a great novelist - de Beauvoir not so much, though she had a place in the history of "feminism" no doubt. Sartre was a superb novelist - beyond great. I don't know what he was - something almost demonic. I say that because I don't want to give the impression I value him as anything positive. A bit like Napoleon. Calm down, nrsonde. You say I'm uneducated. Perhaps I've had a different education from yours. My experience of the French trio is also different from yours, as is good. Don't let it worry you.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Oct 25, 2018 9:43:37 GMT 1
Collins Dictionary ascribes mauvaise foi to Sartre, and categorises him as a philosopher. I think aqua can be forgiven for using the same reference source as everyone who has ever compiled a crossword in the UK. Merriam-Webster is happy with the translation "bad faith", which seems to satisfy American requirements.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Oct 25, 2018 23:51:57 GMT 1
I think mrsonde thinks philosophical terms, such as bad faith and solipsism, that've been imparted to him by the OU, have supremacy over the ordinary meanings they've accrued over time in ordinary conversation.
As you once more exert your superiority, mrsonde --- what are you trying to say?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Oct 26, 2018 23:39:12 GMT 1
I've always held the OU in respect - it taught me a lot of good mathematics and my colleagues with OU degrees have an impeccable grasp of physics, anatomy and physiology. So I must infer that philosophy is inherently bunk, which certainly mirrors the impression I got from listening to philosophers at other seats of learning. Or if I am feeling generous, maybe it's like economics - there are no wrong answers.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Oct 27, 2018 0:42:16 GMT 1
Add politics to your philosophy and economics, and you get PPE - apparently responsible for our politicians typically taking a centrist approach, and for championing the class system.
Maybe it's because they're trained to argue till they realise they're idiots, and to go down the wine-bar/brasserie afterwards, and then on to their club, and forget what it was all about.
So they can wake up and start it all over again the following day. That's how the human race progresses.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 16, 2018 16:10:20 GMT 1
Fascinating and even though thoroughly deserved somewhat painful to watch May's "in denial" performance today, isn't it? A strange mix of farce and tragedy, psychological disintegration from the cognitive dissonance of refusing to recognise reality even when it's slapping in you in the face and a comically offensive Ruritarian attempt to persuade everyone else to go along with her transparent deluded propaganda. Very reminiscent of Chamberlain's Peace in Our Time indeed.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Nov 18, 2018 2:17:58 GMT 1
What do you propose then?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 18, 2018 6:39:27 GMT 1
What do you propose then? Hmmm...It's a truly bizarre situation. I can remember nothing like it in my lifetime. The nearest historical parallels would I think be Chamberlain at Munich, for the appalling dishonour of it, both of the Government and the country, and Eden's and Macmillan's behaviour over Suez, for the duplicity of it, their lying to Paliament and, again, the whole country, and, again, the subsequent humiliating dishonour. I've been trying very hard, given the outrageousness of her behaviour and what she proposes, to bend over backwards to see her perspective - some glimmer of how on earth she explains to herself what she's done. The best that can be said is that she truly believes that she's tried "her best", that she's not deliberately lying when she declares so forcefully that this is the best this country can possibly expect, and that given this belief she can comfort herself with the delusion that therefore she's done what's right - her duty, as I expect she'd put it. However, even if that is true, and let's grant her that crumb of deluded self-comfort, the fact remains that she has failed miserably, by the aims and strict standards she herself set out so emphatically at Lancaster House and Florence. She has broken all her red lines, and done so on an indefinite basis. That alone would under any normal circumstances be enough to reasonably expect her to resign, through her own sense of honour and decency, or, failing that, for her Party to insist she be replaced. But it is now abundantly clear that the situation is a great deal worse. She hasn't merely failed, by her own standards, and to achieve the aims she led her Party and the whole country to believe were unswervingly hers: it's now clear that she deliberately misled that Party and country, and that these were not her aims and standards at all. The truth is what many of us who voted to leave feared all along - that as a remainer, her heart and head weren't in this project from the start, and therefore her adoption of such a feeble compliant negotiation strategy was not merely the fruit of a British sense of self-deprecation and diplomatic placation but was, in fact, from a leaver's point of view, deliberate sabotage. I would say treachery - but as I say, one must grant that she believed she was acting in the country's best interest. This generosiy, deserved or not, does not excuse her duplicity - her fooling her Party and country by pretending to field a team of ministers to pursue her stated strategy, when in fact she was secretly pursuing, through her Civil Service, another negotiating strategy altogether, behind their backs and without their knowledge. This is inexcusable. I propose therefore that she should be removed, with all due haste and in appropriate dishonour. I doubt this will be done, because a very large section of the Tory Party share this dishonour and deluded sense of self-righteousness themselves. But it should be done, by all parliamentary precedent, and by any smidgeon of a meaningful sense of honour this country still has left.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Nov 18, 2018 7:18:09 GMT 1
But what do you propose? What what you do if you were PM? Businesses need to know what is going to happen so that they can plan ahead. From what I hear they don't want a sudden break from all EU regulations in 4 months' time, they want a smooth exit. www.cbi.org.uk/making-a-success-of-brexit/Exit.html
|
|