₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
So if anybody can be described as an embodiment of wickedness, it's simply their nature and not a flaw? How about stupidity would it also not be a flaw?

budaatum:
Aadozia! So instead of admitting you were wrong, you modified it, lol!

As I said:

aadoiza:
So saying that it was kant and not your master he called a bloody racist means I'm still claiming to be right abi?

LordReed:
So if anybody can be described as an embodiment of wickedness, it's simply their nature and not a flaw? How about stupidity would it also not be a flaw?

aadoiza:
Stop being shallow. What's a flaw? A flaw is a blemish, or a disfigurement that prevents an object from being TOTALLY perfect.
Stupidity means lack of intelligence, or common sense. There are adults who cannot use their intelligence, differentiate from their left hand from right due to brain damage or whatever the cause might have been. These are called stupid, not in a derogatory way as it's what they are. So their stupid is no flaw, as far as intelligence is concerned. However; someone who sometimes fails to use their common sense when they are expected to do so, can be said to a flaw, which is stupidity.
A perfectly white shirt stained with a drop of engine oil can no longer be said to be perfectly white, but it is still a white shirt. But if you completely dipped it in a bucketful of engine oil, it's no longer a white but condemned shirt.

budaatum:
Please stop lying. Especially when your lying can very easily be proven.

Though, even with evidence placed in front of you I bet you'd continue insisting you are right!

Martian never called Heidegger a racist!

Martian:
I don’t know about you but to me Nazism is synonymous with racism. My thanks for your “card carrying nazi” information was sarcasm.

LordReed:
And don't be so arrogant. I am asking you questions so that what you are saying is clearer, don't act like a dickhead because you being asked questions.

And what of the person who is wickedness personified, is it a flaw?

budaatum:
You really are funny, aadozia. Your level is not here. Stick to your flat earth please.

aadoiza:
You're still as shallow as ever. Even a jss student would grasp this simple english.

aadoiza:
At your age, you should be done with unconscionable skullduggery.

LordReed:
Abeg park one side you are too full of yourself. I am asking for clarification so that I don't make false assumptions but you think you are some kinda of diva. GTFOH.

budaatum:
You do not know my age, and age has nothing to do with anything since even a baby can teach you, if you chose to learn of course, instead of ignorantly make false assumptions.

aadoiza:
You're way too old to indulge yourself in frivolities and online shenanigans as you do every so often. Pathetic MILF.

aadoiza:
OK, but e no cause cry na. O ya pele.

DCatt:
Monkey drop my mentions! OLAADEGBU is still living in your head months after he hasn't posted anything.

3. ‘The race of Negroes … [is] full of affect and passion, very lively, chatty and vain. It can be educated, but only to the education of servants, ie, they can be trained.’

OLAADEGBU:
One year living rent free in his head. Howdie?

QuinQQ:
Thanks 4 your erudite response.
But don't you think it better to formulate your own unique views through direct experience of phenomena than rely on others' views? (As per the quote below)

https://www.nairaland.com/attachments/19806490_screenshot20260219031407chrome_jpegf0935cc7b977fc5158074fb7762c4077

budaatum:
You would think I forgot you, but truth is you've never left my head since you posted the above. And I bring it here so it's kept. I'll add a link to your original post when done.

First, do you see the irony of you quoting Yoko Ono instead of presenting what is in your own head?

i ask because, as much as I have read Heidegger every hour for 12, and started it all over again, I actually find him unquotable.

You see, we do not read what others write in order to quote them, but to understand what it is they have to say.

I, for instance read a lot of early philosophers, not so I can quote them, but so I can understand how knowledge has developed.

It's the same way I would study the history of say, law, or mathematics, not so I may quote it, but so I may understand how it developed and learn from what has already been discovered instead of wasting my time with multiple errors trying to invent the wheel from scratch.

If you do not know the views that others have already expressed, you just might be repeating views that have already been expressed, and even been debunked.

And knowing the views that have already been expressed will enable you to stand on the shoulders of giants that preceded you and enable you to see much further than they saw.

For only by knowing the foundation of a thing can one "formulate your own unique views through direct experience of phenomena than rely on others' views".

QuinQQ:
Very, very valid points. However (there's always a however ), the danger with vast majority of people is total lack of any original thought whatsoever that is based entirely on their own direct experience. But you do make lots and lots of sense.

budaatum:
Such people believe what they read and do not bother to understand first, but I think my posts will show that I am not "vast majority of people".

In fact, the books I quote the most are the Bible and the Quran, but I do not believe either book. And only a fool would believe Heidegger, who's Being and Time is a description of the "vast majority of people" so one can know and decide for oneself if one wants to be one of them.

QuinQQ:
You make a lot of sense. The danger though, is to subconsciously believe something is so just because someone said authoritatively in a book that it is so