No, no and no - I'm sorry to have to reply to that line. It is not appropriate to equate Abu+zola with either tpia or KAG. There is just no basis to do so.
Yes, yes, yes - O yes there is!!! Plenty of basis. One such basis would be the compulsion to be obnoxious. Again, demonstrating idiocy in the sense of counterproductive. Ejaculating utterances without so much as an argument to back it up. It doesn't matter whether the argument is sound or flawed. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it, but first we need to get to the point where they can support their statements with arguments, any arguments.
Consider this:
most people insisting esu is not satan are either ignorant of what esu entails, or are babalawos as mentioned.
http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-347209.0.html#msg4861390This is typical! Even if I was going to bother talking to her, I very much doubt that she can present an argument or line of reasoning that led her to make such a statement. While I admit that Abuzola is a eeny weeny bit more obnoxious than she is, you've got to admit that they are cut from the same cloth.
. . . And as for KAG! I wrote that one off a long time ago. Again he's one that just opens his mouth to yarn dust without providing any supporting arguments. What I find particularly irritating is that he does it so authoritatively and using such grammar and words that would suggest that he actually knew what he was talking about. That works in Nigeria, I know, but it doesn't work on me. Very early on when I first came to Nairaland I made my thoughts clear on that kind of hi4lootin' nonsense.
Wow! are this questions truly issues that are driving the progress of African Academic institutions? I've never liked nigerian universities, apart from a few cultural faculties in universities like Ife. They actually produce papers worth reading.
Anyway I've always found academics in africa to be dodgy. Even the manner in which we studied was worrying. There seemed to be little care as to whether we grasped concepts and were able to use those concepts to build arguments of our own. Rather we were subjected to rote learning. And till this day I can challenge anyone anywhere in the world that they don't have students who can cram information as well as someone who has had a nigerian education. Stop any nigerian student and ask him to quote textbook definitions on his subject of study. He will fire them out like a machinegun. 'democracy is government of the people by the people for the people', ratatatata just like that without a pause. But then on further questioning it becomes obvious that he hasn't actually considered the pro and cons, the effects and circumstances that are required for democracy.
It is my suspicion that academia in nigeria is so superficial because it had such a high status value. When something socially has a high status value while it might still attract sincere adherents it will also attract many who do not have an affinity for it but rather are only interested in the status that it can afford them.
I think in the days of colonialism the first few africans who went abroad to study came back speaking hifolootin' grammar and wearing their square hats. This impressed a lot of people who thought, 'wow! if only I could have a square hat like that, I'd be the envy of the whole village'. So people (our parents generation) pursued education not for a love of learning but so that they too could speak grammar and wear square hats.
It's all that learning Jargons to spew out in the hope that it'll make you sound like you know what you're talking about that irks me so much. When this is compounded by the fact the the person in question seems incapable of construct a simple argument to support his claims then I am forced to just dismiss that person. I hate dismissing anyone like that, but I find that I have to sometimes to avoid headache.
I've got an argument for you. It goes . ,
no and no and no and no again. . . .no . NO! no. nonononono.
What are the steps of reasoning, how do I arrive at my point. Well, let's not let that minor detail bother us.
no no no nno!!
'They told me to go to rehab
I said NO NO NO'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZtGybjFjOUI wrote the above in response to this:
No.
Once again, no.
Not quite. Philosophy deals with matters that religions also dogmatically cling to: metaphysics. It's not encroaching, as the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
It's not religious because it's not a philosophy that pertains to the worship of a particular deity. Although Heraclitus was vague about what he meant by the logos, it can be deciphered from the extracts that are available, etc, that the logos wasn't a being of substance. It was a part of Heraclitus's cosmology, and a staple element in his philosophy, but it isn't quite the same thing as the Christian conception of the word, nor the modern understanding of what logos entails.
Um, Syrup said the use of the term predates Christianity, not religious aspects as a whole. Alluding to the use of the logos in a capacity that precedes Christianity has ensured that your initial argument has been falsified. Further, that the word "logos" also precedes Heraclitus should not be overlooked.
No and no.
http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=137750.msg2311242#msg2311242I then made the mistake of trying to discuss further with him to find out the premise for statements. You can look up the thread to see how it progressed. Sorry, it didn't progress, it went round in circles. You need to understand that all this while I was actually taking the guy seriously. my bad!
For instance I tried to take him up on what he said above:
It's not religious because it's not a philosophy that pertains to the worship of a particular deity. Although Heraclitus was vague about what he meant by the logos, it can be deciphered from the extracts that are available, etc, that the logos wasn't a being of substance. It was a part of Heraclitus's cosmology, and a staple element in his philosophy, but it isn't quite the same thing as the Christian conception of the word, nor the modern understanding of what logos entails.I asked:
What I really need you to explain to me is how you arrived at the notion from studying Heraclitus that he wasn't talking about a 'being of substance', whatever that is. I don't actually understand what you mean by that phrase but perhaps it will become clear as you explain.
How can Heraclitus' logos which is the source, the creator, the molder of the universe, whose plan we had best adhere to in order to live a good life, . . . how is this different from the christian understanding of Logos?
To which he responded:
I can't find my notes, so I can't quote from them, but, Heraclitus's conception of the Logos is perhaps closely comparable to the Tao: a force akin to an energy that permeates all things. It wasn't a being itself, according to Heraclitus.
Christians conceive of the logos as a part of the Trinity/godhead beings. The logos is a definable thing in the Christian sense. A cognizant creator. not so with Heraclitus.
I'm leaning towards the idea that this thread is a joke.
I can't believe that at this point I still continued to take the guy seriously. He couldn't find his notes. We are living in the internet age, surely a quick browse through google could have brought up the evidences that he needed. I was even ignoring such nonsensical statements like 'a force akin to an energy'. But I wasn't going to let him get away with 'it wasn't a being itself'. And of course he is also posing as an expert on christian theology and the christian understanding of logos.
You're kidding.!! I would have thought from the forceful and determined way you posted that you had a fixed definition that you wanted to put across. Maybe that's just your writing style.
My definition of religion is the practice of making whole something that is deemed to be fractured. For instance the relationship between a man and his diety. Religion is the act of seeking reconciliation. Yet it does not just apply to the relationship between a man and his diety, but also a man and his environment, and a man and the different parts of his being. Though the etymology of the word religion is unsure I am inclined to accepted the explanation that it comes from the latin roots Re Ligere. To bind back, or to bind again.
I take it that you are an expert on the Tao too. What makes you so sure that the Tao is not conscious? I really wish you had your notes so I know better where you are coming from. I suspect that you are making some humungous assumptions about stuff you know nothing about. All I can say for now is that I hope you are aware that Taoism is a practice and those that are steeped in this practice are unequivocal about one thing. 'The Tao that you can talk about is not the real Tao'. The same thing goes for philosophy. That is not to knock your conception or understanding of what you have read which might even actually be an elegant conceptualisation. But ultimately it is just a conception.
ps. What constitutes a 'being'?
Then came the confessions, slowly:
When it's my thoughts it generally is forceful and determined.
I am not an expert on the Tao. I'm not so sure that the Tao is not conscious, my intention wasn't so much to describe the Tao but to give an idea - through a vague comparism - of what can be inferred from Heraclitus's writings.
I doubt that - regarding the former. I've used google to double-check, and its clear Heraclitus wasn't presenting logos as either a being or a deity. As for the latter I've always understood it as "The Tao that can be defined is not the Tao", meaning that it can be talked about, but not defined. Semantics?
Oh, geez, that's a tough one. May we save that for another thread?
He talks forcefully whether or not it's justified. That's just the way he is with his thoughts.
He is no expert on the Tao but he is expert enough to use it to make a forceful point.
He checked google and found vindication for his idiocy, yet he failed to present his findings on the forums for us to study.
And as for what he means by the Logos is not a being?
"Oh, geez, that's a tough one. May we save that for another thread?"
It was at this point that my radar picked up something dodgy. But I persevered with him. From there it was a struggle to stop the thread from going down all sorts of red herring paths. He came up with a definition of being eventually that involved what he called 'Awareness' which however was different from consciousness. We went round and round. I showed him texts that suggested that traditional people didn't see any difficulty with seeing 'concepts' and 'beings' as one without incongruity, and perhaps they had a sophistication he lacked.
I don't think he liked that. It must have pricked his ego.
Moi:
Quote
I would like to suggest that these traditional people were perhaps a bit more sophisticated than you are theologically and the problems lies in your inability to keep up.Lui:
Somehow I doubt that.
He even claimed that the fact that he could post responses on the internet was proof of his consciousness, at which point I knew I was dealing with a blockhead.
You need to read the whole thread for yourself to really get the picture.
http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=137750.msg2312719#msg2312719No, this guy definately gives abuzola a run for his money.
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
