Is Gah! inane?

[Soulforged]

Yes, it's inane, that's the point. If I wanted to say something proper as a reply I wouldn't post "Gah!", I only do it if I want to be funny, though many times that does not take any effect. It's like self-humilliation.

[Pindar]

Currently I'm recovering from a five minute fit of laughter after reading how Pindar's thread evolved into a gahfest.

“Next,” said I, “compare our nature in respect of education and its lack to such an experience as this. Picture men dwelling in a sort of subterranean cavern with a long entrance open to the light on its entire width. Conceive them as having their legs and necks fettered from childhood, so that they remain in the same spot,able to look forward only, and prevented by the fetters from turning their heads."

"...tell me do you think that these men would have seen anything of themselves or of one another except the shadows cast from the fire on the wall of the cave that fronted them?”

"Then in every way such prisoners would deem reality to be nothing else than the shadows of the artificial objects.”

"And consider this also,” said I, “if such a one should go down again and take his old place would he not get his eyes full of darkness, thus suddenly coming out of the sunlight?” “He would indeed.” “Now if he should be required to contend with these perpetual prisoners in 'evaluating' these shadows while his vision was still dim and before his eyes were accustomed to the dark--and this time required for habituation would not be very short--would he not provoke laughter, and would it not be said of him that he had returned from his journey aloft with his eyes ruined and that it was not worth while even to attempt the ascent? And if it were possible to lay hands on and to kill the man who tried to release them and lead them up, would they not kill him?” “They certainly would,” he said.

-Plato

[Spetulhu]

As of 9am USpst: 15 gah v. 0 yes.

indeed.

Thoug I do understand the point. It gives people an option to have no opinion when they may actually have one.

It gives you something besides yes and no to vote on. Why? Because sometimes people start polls when they'd do better keeping their mouth shut.

[Divinus Arma]

It gives you something besides yes and no to vote on. Why? Because sometimes people start polls when they'd do better keeping their mouth shut.

A Tad harsh don't you think?

[Tribesman]

Next,” said I, “compare our nature in respect of education and its lack to such an experience as this.

Really Pindar such an inappropriate passage considering the poll ,as those with the positive view could be either those that are fettered or those that descend from the light .

[Pindar]

"...would he not provoke laughter, and would it not be said of him that he had returned from his journey aloft with his eyes ruined and that it was not worth while even to attempt the ascent?"

Really Pindar such an inappropriate passage considering the poll ,as those with the positive view could be either those that are fettered or those that descend from the light .

“Well then, if he recalled to mind his first habitation and what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow-bondsmen (to gah), do you not think that he would count himself happy in the change and pity them?” “He would indeed.”

-Plato

[R'as al Ghul]

-Plato

GAH!
I'm not sure what to make of this Plato quote directed at me.
It may be that you see yourself as a kind of Prometheus that descends from time to time into the dark cave that is the backroom, to bring us cave-dwellers the light of your intelligence and get killed for it. I'm not sure.

Personally, I respect your educated views and posts, but your style makes it sometimes difficult to sympathize with you.
I think this has been discussed in the past.
The reason for my amusement was that your off-hand comment "Gah is for the retarded" caused such a reaction. I'm aware of the inane tradition of GAH! and so should you. You even remind us that you are a long-time member. Obviously you underestimated the importance. Reading the dispute was like watching a Knight get pitch-forked to death by a mob of peasants.
I'm truely sorry if you feel offended, although I don't think you do.

Concerning the question if a poll is valid without GAH, I have to say that I see GAH as a third option to pro and con. Voting GAH is, for me, equal to voting "other". It requires further explanation why you voted GAH. And so it was handled in the past. Polls without GAH are as valid as those with. But, you have to expect an ironic reminder that you left it out and I'm guilty of reminding people, too.

I've to add that I see GAH! as a fun tradition and if we start to bully members for ignoring it then we've crossed a line. Reminding and introducing is what we should do.

[Pindar]

The reason for my amusement was that your off-hand comment "Gah is for the retarded" caused such a reaction. I'm aware of the inane tradition of GAH! and so should you...I'm truely sorry if you feel offended, although I don't think you do.

I'm not offended in the least. I thought it was pretty funny too: particularly the "gahfest" as you labeled it, like a gaggle of disturbed geese.

Once the peasants started to gather, at what you rightly judged was an off hand comment, I thought it was an amazing study in the herd mentality and dogma at work.


Ahh, the Plato quote wasn't directed at you per say. I simply used your post as a marker.

[Faust|]

Reading the dispute was like watching a Knight get pitch-forked to death by a mob of peasants.

Can't agree there, myself being from a lineage of warrior-elites.

[Sjakihata]

The plato cave analogy is funny - I don't believe in metaphysics.

ps. Platos thinking is flawed in so many ways, that Im suprised that an illuminated man quotes him.

[LeftEyeNine]

Now I can understand why Pindar is soooo "comfortable" about what he says.

[Mikeus Caesar]

I can't help but laugh that the most serious topic in the entire backroom is this one, on the subject of our beloved 'GAH'.

I for one, believe Pindar was wrong to leave GAH off his poll, claiming it to be a 'retarded' option. After all, as many have said before me, GAH is an option for those without a proper opinion, or those with an unsure opinion. I myself have voted GAH many a time in the past because i couldn't make my mind up.

[Reenk Roink]

The presence of 'Gah!' in a poll is not mandatory at all. It is completly valid if an Organian wishes to forego ‘Gah’ for a variety of reasons. Of course, leaving 'Gah' off will cause a response from other Orgers, who will question why such a course of action was taken (which is why in the first post, one might wish to state his/her reasons for leaving 'Gah' off ). When this inevitable query is posed, a simple explanation is all that is needed, using a certain tact that others expect from patrons of this fine community. A perfect example of the abovementioned is shown in this thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=62472

The poll creator was quickly called out on the lack of ‘Gah’ to which he promptly offered a reasonable and polite response. Others still refused to vote for the reason that there was no ‘Gah’ (humorous, if it was for the sake of ‘Gah’, or completely understandable, if ‘Gah’ was the only option to reflect ones indifference, etc…

Contrast the abovementioned situation, to the current one, in which the initial response was “Gah is for the retarded.” It is, therefore, easy to see why this condescending response brought out the ire of many Orgahs. One can recall, in the not so distant past, how labeling a certain group “retarded” was the beginning of a slippery slope…

The changed, second statement of “Gah is an inanity” perhaps served as a method to distance oneself from the earlier “retarded” comment, yet was followed by the holier-than-thou “It is the abode of those without the acumen to think through an issue or commit to a stance…” which labels quite a large number of Organs, including very respected members and moderators…

Further patronizing occurred, as the one in question used analogies to “compare our nature in respect of education and its lack to such an experience as this” as if ‘Gah’ users and supporters are like the “men dwelling in a sort of subterranean cavern” who “gaggle like disturbed geese.”

Further parallels by the one in question showed quite disturbing evidence of delusions of grandeur and narcissism as once again, ‘Gah’ supporters were given characteristics of barnyard animals and actually demoted to serfdom…

[Zalmoxis]

We must expel these insolent folks who say "yes"...

Death to the yessies?

[Pindar]

The plato cave analogy is funny

It was meant to be.

ps. Platos thinking is flawed in so many ways, that Im suprised that an illuminated man quotes him.

I take it you don't agree with Alfred North Whitehead: "Philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato."

[Pindar]

I can't help but laugh that the most serious topic in the entire backroom is this one, on the subject of our beloved 'GAH'.

Telling isn't it. I think there are now four threads referring to gah in some fashion.

[Pindar]

The changed, second statement of “Gah is an inanity” perhaps served as a method to distance oneself from the earlier “retarded” comment...

Gah is for the retarded and it is inane. The option retards the thread's topic and given gah is not a word: it is inane i.e. empty.

[Sjakihata]

It was meant to be.



I take it you don't agree with Alfred North Whitehead: "Philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato."

Yes, that is unreasonable to say that. Had he said to Aristotle I'd be inclined to agree more. However, none of the socratic thinkers formulated the principle of contradiction - which is really the essesence of metaphysics, and philosophy.

[Quid]

See, see! The heavily criticised word GAH! might just have given us an adult discussion on philosophy and its writers...

Quid

[Viking]

Gah is for the retarded

Hear, hear! 80,7% of the Backroom consist of retards.

[LeftEyeNine]

Hear, hear! 80,7% of the Backroom consist of retards.

Let him be the wiseman and revolt one day where retards are in power

*expects another quote as a reply..

[Krasturak]

*opens coffin*

*creeps out of coffin*

Gah! Krast hears voices! Gah!

*sneaks*

*lurks*

*listens*

Gnish! Gnash! Gni!

They are saying 'Gah!'!!

*grabs axe*

.... and the rest is history ....

[Sjakihata]

ah, the good old

that settles it

[Husar]

I don´t get it...some people are having fun with something completely harmless and ignorable and then some others come in, play the educated 1337 and try to spoil the fun with philosophy...

And the people who cry if someone leaves out Gah! should stop, because that really is stupid.

[LeftEyeNine]

I don´t get it...some people are having fun with something completely harmless and ignorable and then some others come in, play the educated 1337 and try to spoil the fun with philosophy...

And the people who cry if someone leaves out Gah! should stop, because that really is stupid.

Well put.

[Pindar]

Yes, that is unreasonable to say that. Had he said to Aristotle I'd be inclined to agree more. However, none of the socratic thinkers formulated the principle of contradiction - which is really the essesence of metaphysics, and philosophy.

Actually the principle of contradiction can be traced to Parmenides. Plato was aware of the idea as he made repeated reference to it. I'll use the "Republic" as an example since I already referred to it earlier:

"It is obvious that the same thing will never do or suffer opposites in the same respect in relation to the same thing and at the same time." -Book IV

[Papewaio]

So how does that definition handle Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment?

Where the same thing at the same time is in two contradictory states alive/dead...

[Faust|]

So how does that definition handle Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment?

Where the same thing at the same time is in two contradictory states alive/dead...

I do believe that the Schordinger's Cat thought experiment was not meant to be a serious statement by itself, although it is commonly mistaken to be so, but just a creative analogy for the state that a quantum particle is in BEFORE we measure it. I think it perks people's interest because of its bending of existential laws... so basically, it's is so intriguing (even if mistakenly), precisely because it violates the familiar principle of contradiction, which you asked about. I'll put something here from a book:

"Schrodinger regarded [the cat paradox] as patent nonsense, and I think most physicists would agree with him. There is somehting absurd about the very idea of a macroscopic object being in a linear combination of two palpably different states. An electron can be in a linear combination of spin up and spin down, but a cat simply cannot be in a linear combination of alive and dead."

-from Griffiths

[Sjakihata]

Actually the principle of contradiction can be traced to Parmenides. Plato was aware of the idea as he made repeated reference to it. I'll use the "Republic" as an example since I already referred to it earlier:

"It is obvious that the same thing will never do or suffer opposites in the same respect in relation to the same thing and at the same time." -Book IV

Yes, he may have refered to it (it's long time since I read the Republic, can I get the international notation for the passage so that I can read the context etc?), however, he did not formulate the principle and it is not actively working in his own philosophy. It was Aristotle, I believe, who formally formulated the principle of contradiction - not Plato.

Let me get one thing straight, exactly what is your argument? That Plato has a valid philosophy?

[Pindar]

Yes, he may have refered to it (it's long time since I read the Republic, can I get the international notation for the passage so that I can read the context etc?), however, he did not formulate the principle and it is not actively working in his own philosophy. It was Aristotle, I believe, who formally formulated the principle of contradiction - not Plato.

The reference: "It is obvious that the same thing will never do or suffer opposites in the same respect in relation to the same thing and at the same time." is Republic 4:436b

You can compare it with Aristotle's "The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect." Metaphysics G, 3,1005b18-20

Let me get one thing straight, exactly what is your argument? That Plato has a valid philosophy?

I have presented no argument. I simply pointed out that the principle of contradiction has its source in Parmenides and that Plato knew the notion and used it. As far as general views on Plato: I have issues with reification and would lean in the direction of the master of the Lyceum, but I do not despise Plato's work and consider it unwise to simply toss aside one of the Triumvirs of the Western Intellectual Tradition.