tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post8478468168531647320..comments2023-10-17T02:52:22.037-07:00Comments on David's blog: White Swans exist too, you know.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-13783921239645880742011-08-29T13:51:26.841-07:002011-08-29T13:51:26.841-07:00According to Wikipedia - the source of all knowled...According to Wikipedia - the source of all knowledge - It was actually a Steve Lawrence hit from a play, Golden Rainbows, he starred in with his wife Eydie Gorme running in '68 & '69 - originally titled "I've Got To Be Me," and actually released as a single the year before the show - '67 - and it made it to number 6 on the Billboard Easy Listening chart. Davis recorded it as "I've Gotta Be Me" while the show was still running and it got up to no. 11 on the Billboard Hot 100 (his highest ever; another Wikipedia site has it as a number one hit on Billboard's Easy Listening chart). Ironically, it became one of Davis' signature songs (the other being Candy Man, of course) rather than Lawrence's. However, it has also been covered by Ella Fitzgerald, Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Tony Bennett and The Temptations.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-87904525520497149542011-08-29T11:25:07.560-07:002011-08-29T11:25:07.560-07:00Actually, I think "I gotta be me" should...Actually, I think "I gotta be me" should be attributed to Sammy Davis, Jr.Conchisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-42801529792161399232011-08-26T09:25:58.054-07:002011-08-26T09:25:58.054-07:00Oh, now I understand. Good point, Bear.Oh, now I understand. Good point, Bear.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-43664018684143231922011-08-26T07:50:10.831-07:002011-08-26T07:50:10.831-07:00I gotta be me!
To do is to be - Socrates
To be is ...I gotta be me!<br />To do is to be - Socrates<br />To be is to do - Plato<br />Scooby do be do - SinatraBearnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-10862601989740161752011-08-25T15:52:03.781-07:002011-08-25T15:52:03.781-07:00You just have to push it, don't you. If you me...You just have to push it, don't you. If you mean by your last sentence that there is no difference between believing something of which there is no or very little evidence and NOT believing something of which there is little or no evidence, then we disagree (there is, I'm sure, a large gray area too). I have noted that arationalists" (my term - others say irrationalists, but I think there is a difference) are fond of levelling the playing floor between themselves and critical rationalists by stating it is the same thing, but, have a car cross into their lane of traffic, and they will all become rationalists very quickly. Arationalists are often, maybe, usually only so with things that don't matter for their personal safety or which will not have a great negative effect on their material lives. If they don't, both rationists and even many other arationalists think they are crazy (e.g., the parents who try to pray away their child's curable blood disease rather than get a transfusion). When I say that at base all knowledge is based on some kind of faith, I am using it the the way Popper used it - "Although an uncritical and comprehensive rationalism is logically untenable, and although a comprehensive irrationalism is logically tenable, this is no reason why we should adopt the latter. For there are other tenable attitudes, notably that of critical rationalism which recognizes the fact that the fundamental rationalist attitutde results from an (at least tentative) act of faith - from faith in reason." One of the big problems with arationalism is that one belief is as good as another - you can believe in the brotherhood of man or the ascension of a master race just as easily. A critical rationalist sees a difference based on something other than belief. That was almost an entire post, but I love this stuff.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-29354185624201090922011-08-25T14:11:44.464-07:002011-08-25T14:11:44.464-07:00Worship was a very deliberate word choice as I kne...Worship was a very deliberate word choice as I knew it would give you goose bumps. That is entirely the point. Rationalists usually have a hard time reconciling the fact that they worship as devoutly as most spiritualists or religious folk. As I said, the only difference is the object of their devotion.Bearnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-75481917818890588222011-08-25T08:11:44.319-07:002011-08-25T08:11:44.319-07:00See, experience told me that Bear was going to clo...See, experience told me that Bear was going to clobber me as usual and there he goes with a serious remark. A black swan. You never know. <br /><br />I would agree with him to the extent that at some level all human non-instinctual knowledge is based on some level of faith that something we can't test is true. I would not use the word "worship" myself here, as it often has religious overtones, but accept it in the non-religious sense of honoring or highly regarding something. <br /><br />There is a next step he did not take from his argument, and I don't know if he believes it (and, I don't think so), but many people do - that because some faith is necessary, that therefore everything based on faith is equally valid. That I reject.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-26320151508549036842011-08-25T07:02:54.100-07:002011-08-25T07:02:54.100-07:00It is interesting to me that one of humanity's...It is interesting to me that one of humanity's common bonds is worship based on faith. The only thing that really changes is the object of the worship. For some (including you) it is logic, for others material success, for narcissists it's themselves, and the religious have their various godheads or totems or whatever. The commonality is beliefs based on experience that form values that inform the object we ALL faithfully worship. So speaks The Bear.Bearnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-11241935340751610262011-08-24T08:08:11.972-07:002011-08-24T08:08:11.972-07:00That's it! You just reminded me of the ridicul...That's it! You just reminded me of the ridiculous argument I was having with "Eddie" who insisted that he didn't believe planes could fly, and that there was not "proof" you could, and he raised the inductive reasoning argument. I pointed out that he got on planes all the time b/c experience taught him that they would fly, whether or not there was proof. We don't rely on science to fly. We rely on engineering.<br /><br />Thanks.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-21320245314112668252011-08-24T08:02:37.210-07:002011-08-24T08:02:37.210-07:00Note to self: "Do not recommend books to Dav...Note to self: "Do not recommend books to David."<br /><br />The British Empiricists were probably my favorite guys as a philosophy major undergrad. Hume -- the greatest of those skeptics -- was probably the most compelling. The great paradox (to me) is that we fly on airplanes entrusting our lives to immutable laws of physics. But, there's no rational basis for believing in any of them.Conchisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-26592450342830234702011-08-23T19:40:35.081-07:002011-08-23T19:40:35.081-07:00I cannot explain that to people who do not have th...I cannot explain that to people who do not have the proper security clearance.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-33646872382675935462011-08-23T19:36:51.970-07:002011-08-23T19:36:51.970-07:00It's a good thing your readership is highly ed...It's a good thing your readership is highly educated; otherwise they might not know the meaning of obsequious.<br /><br />I do remember being mentioned by name. But as I'm not innocent my name need not be changed.<br /><br />Glad the house was fine. It is probably a coincidence with the earthquake but for a good part of the evening there were F-16's flying over area low and slow like they were patrolling. Hmmmmmmm.<br />-DonDonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-35291462174469419132011-08-23T19:27:40.312-07:002011-08-23T19:27:40.312-07:00All I ask for is one obsequious reader? Is that so...All I ask for is one obsequious reader? Is that so much to ask? I have written about you in a post before, at least once if not more, and I did not use a pseudonym. <br /><br />Yes, felt the earthquake fairly strong although one lose things shook. The house was fine.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-48769834106932438052011-08-23T16:54:55.818-07:002011-08-23T16:54:55.818-07:00Just read this post about your pet peeve. Remind m...Just read this post about your pet peeve. Remind me to tell you about how monthly hormonal variations can effect one's mood. It's very common in a large segment of the population.<br /><br />BTW if you ever decide to write about me in a post no pseudonym is necessary.<br /><br />Did you feel the earthquake? It seemed to be centered not far from you.<br /><br />-DonDonnoreply@blogger.com