Tuesday Dec 27 Reading and Philosophy


The event today attracted nine people, four of which shared their own writing (not including myself). I read “Flowers of Love” by Oscar Wilde. Other people shared their own poems, but I read three poems written by the guests.

The discussion topic was skepticism and stoicism. Intro notes behind the first cut, transcript behind the second. Everyone stayed for the discussion, which lasted about an hour. I unfortunately got pulled away near the end for RL stuff, but kept my eye on it. Thanks to everyone who was included. Once again if you want a copy of the transcript feel free to ask as I do have it.

Skepticism

a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.

b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.

c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty. -Free Dictionary

“The Western tradition of systematic skepticism goes back at least as far as Pyrrho of Elis. He was troubled by the disputes that could be found within all philosophical schools of his day. According to a later account of his life, he became overwhelmed by his inability to determine rationally which school was correct. Upon admitting this to himself, he finally achieved the inner peace that he had been seeking. …The goal of this critique, which Pyrrho’s followers realized would ultimately subvert even their own method, was to cultivate a distrust of all grand talk. They expected philosophy to collapse into itself. How far in this direction the Pyrrhonean commitment extended is a matter of debate. The Pyrrhonists confessed a belief in appearances, e.g. in hot and cold, grief and joy. It is impossible to deny, they admitted, that one seems to be in pain or seems to touch a piece of wood. Their world, thus, was completely phenomenological. An accomplished Pyrrhonist could, ideally, live as well as a dogmatist but with the added benefit of not worrying about truth and falsity, right and wrong, God’s will, and so forth.

Subjectively, both the powers of the senses and of reasoning may vary across persons. And since knowledge is a product of one and/or the other, and since neither are reliable, knowledge would seem to be in trouble. For instance, a color-blind person sees the world quite differently from everyone else. Moreover, we cannot even give preference on the basis of the power of reason, i.e., by treating the rational animal as a carrier of greater knowledge than the irrational animal. For the irrational animal is still adept at navigating their environment, which presupposes the ability to know about some aspects of the environment.

Secondly, the personality of the individual might also have an impact on what they observe, since (it is argued) preferences are based on sense-impressions, differences in preferences can be attributed to differences in the way that people are affected by the object. (Empiricus:56)

Third, the perceptions of each individual sense seemingly have nothing in common with the other senses: i.e., the color “red” has little to do with the feeling of touching a red object. This is manifest when our senses “disagree” with each other: for example, a mirage presents certain visible features, but is not responsive to any other kind of sense. In that case, our other senses defeat the impressions of sight. But we may also be lacking enough powers of sense to understand the world in its entirety: if we had an extra sense, then we might know of things in a way that the present five senses are unable to advise us of. Given that our senses can be shown to be unreliable by appealing to other senses, and so our senses may be incomplete (relative to some more perfect sense that we lack), then it follows that all of our senses may be unreliable. (Empiricus:58)

Fourth, our circumstances when we do any perceiving may be either natural or unnatural, i.e., we may be either in a state of wakefulness or that of sleep. But it is entirely possible that things in the world really are exactly as they appear to be to those in unnatural states (i.e., if everything were an elaborate dream). (Empiricus:59)

Along the same lines, the skeptic may insist that all things are relative, by arguing that:

1. Absolute appearances either differ from relative appearances, or they do not.

2. If absolutes do not differ from relatives, then they are themselves relative.

3. But if absolutes do differ from relatives, then they are relative, because all things that differ must differ from something; and to “differ” from something is to be relative to something. (Empiricus:67)”

-Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

“Buddhist Skepticism

Buddhist skepticism (Zen Buddhism) is not concerned with whether a thing exists or not. Buddha is said to have touched the earth at the time of his enlightenment so that it could witness his enlightenment. In this way, Buddhism does not claim that knowledge is unattainable.Buddhism places less emphasis on truth and knowledge than western philosophical skepticism. Instead, it emphasizes the goal of Bodhi, which, although often translated as enlightenment, does not imply truth or knowledge. At least in its manifestation of Nagarjuna’s texts that form the core of Madhyamaka, the anti-essentialist aspect of Buddhism makes it an anti-philosophy. From that stance, truth exists solely within the contexts that assert them.

Hindu Skepticism

One of the main schools of Hindu skepticism is the Cārvāka school, also known as Lokāyata. The school is named after Cārvāka, author of the Bārhaspatya-sūtras and was founded in approximately 500 BC. Cārvāka is classified as a “heterodox” (nāstika) system, characterized as a materialistic and atheistic school of thought.” -Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

Other eastern religions and philosophies practiced skepticism, including: Jainism, Confucianism, Daoism, Islamic Theology, etc.

David Johnson argues that “Academic skepticism cannot satnd alone, that it necessarily requires the terms, concepts and assumptions of Stoicism as an antecedent condition.”-What Does Acadmic Skepticism Presuppose?

Stoic: A member of an originally Greek school of philosophy, founded by Zeno about 308 b.c., believing that God determined everything for the best and that virtue is sufficient for happiness.

Its later Roman form advocated the calm acceptance of all occurrences as the unavoidable result of divine will or of the natural order. -Free Dictionary

What do you think of skepticism? Is it a valid philosophy? Does skepticism presuppose stoicism?

I open the floor.

Transcript Dec 27th Reading and Philosophy (starts right after intro)

[10:52] Chraeloos: Sulamis you had a question before about infinite vs. finite?

[10:52] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Well, one trouble with skepticism is that it reftues itself; but Sextus Empiricus was happy with that

[10:52] darcon Xue: I am skeptic about skepticism?

[10:52] Sulamis: concearning knowledge yes

[10:52] Chraeloos: lol darcon

[10:52] Pasión Cri d’Amour (naomi.plodnaco): lol dar

[10:52] Chraeloos: Does knowledge depend on a mind able to handle it?

[10:52] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): But what’s left after skepticism destroys knowledge? Conventions. Phenomenology. And the same disputes arise there–the one vs the many; free will vs. determinism, etc.

[10:52] Chraeloos: ie. language, rationality, logic, etc.

[10:53] Chraeloos: Well Rhi, a skeptic never comes to a satisfactory reasoning

[10:53] Chraeloos: Do they ignore these questions, then?

[10:53] Chraeloos Resident: SpeakEasy HUD detaching…

[10:54] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Sextus ralized that; they don’t ignore those questions, they just think that the answers are relative to a paradigm.

[10:54] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): And to worsenn problems for the dogmatist–the philosophical paradigm ha broken down.

[10:54] Sulamis: I think modern culture tends to consider knowledge finite, since we place no questions anumore

[10:54] Josiane Llewellyn: Some skepticism is healthy though, as it can keep enquiry going, and not assume an absolute truth is already known.

[10:54] darcon Xue: Maybe they, skeptisc,are not doing the right question?

[10:54] Sulamis: we are dogmatic about science

[10:55] ergan Breuilly: the skepticisme is in the human nature! Ne pas douter, c’est accepter l’évidence sans raisonnement, sans logique!*

[10:55] ergan Breuilly: The Skeptic Is in the human nature! Do not doubt, is to accept the evidence without reason, without logic! *

[10:55] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): josi, like Socrates’ methodological skepticism–he said you can’t learn if you think you already know

[10:55] Sulamis: we think we know everything

[10:55] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): ergan, I think we have to make a distinction between common sense skepticism and the philosophical skepticism of the Phrrhonists

[10:55] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): WB Prax

[10:55] Chraeloos: Agreed Rhi

[10:56] Prax (praxisfield): hi again

[10:56] Chraeloos: Hi Prax

[10:56] ergan Breuilly: yes and the difference ‘ bout you Rhiannon?

[10:56] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): We can be skeptical of a claim in science (are the ET bacteria?) or a witness on the stand (“Yes, he did it; I saw him shuffle).

[10:56] Chraeloos: These skeptics from ancient times held a view disregarding any facts.

[10:56] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): But to be skeptical of external realitiy, other minds, substances; that’s a wholly different thing

[10:56] Chraeloos: Not just inquiry into them

[10:57] Chraeloos: Right Rhi

[10:57] Chraeloos: To disregard all “facts” is to not believe in anything, right?

[10:57] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): I like Popper’s point ath we can only approximate the truth and we can only know when we get it wrong.

[10:57] Chraeloos: I like that too

[10:58] Chraeloos: Tehse Skeptics are simply stating that we can’t know anything for certain

[10:58] Josiane Llewellyn: maybe there is relativity of knowledge though, if something can be used, as technology, then it has to be factual at that level.

[10:58] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): He also stressed the role of decisions in science; we *decide* not to be metaphysical or skeptical

[10:58] Chraeloos: *These

[10:58] Sulamis: a chacun sa verité

[10:58] Elizabeth Spieler: It’s been swell but I must run some errands, happy day all!

[10:58] Chraeloos: Prax, we aren’t using voice now, we’re on to the discussion

[10:58] darcon Xue: the truth is simple, and being it simple it is hard to figure it out 🙂

[10:58] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): bye, Liz

[10:58] Chraeloos: Thanks for sharing Elizabeth!

[10:58] Prax (praxisfield): thanks

[10:58] Chraeloos: See you agaon hopefully

[10:58] Elizabeth Spieler: huggies

[10:58] Chraeloos: *again

[10:59] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Sulamis, only caught the ‘truth’ in your statement. What do you mean?

[10:59] Pasión Cri d’Amour (naomi.plodnaco): chao

[10:59] Sulamis: what is truth, asked Pilates

[10:59] darcon Xue: Truth is love 🙂

[10:59] Sulamis: he got no answer

[10:59] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): ty, sulamis

[10:59] ergan Breuilly: la vérité n’est révélée qu’au seul moment où elle devient réelle, yes*

[10:59] ergan Breuilly: the truth is revealed only at the time it becomes real, yes *

[10:59] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): He was copping out too; trying to avoid taking respponsibility

[10:59] Chraeloos: The skeptics would argue that truth relies on perception

[10:59] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): So how much of skepticism is just that–avoidiing responsibility?

[10:59] Chraeloos: Therefore, there is no absolute truth

[11:00] Sulamis: yesss

[11:00] *Cheap Cheap* Truthbox: ▼122▼ Your erogenous zones?

[11:00] Chraeloos: Are they avoiding responcibility? Or are they taking knowledge a step higher?

[11:00] Chraeloos: Is stating that we can’t know anything as a whole irresponsible?

[11:01] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Well, it’s like searcching for the perfect man; that way, you don’t have tgo worry about marriage and can enjoy being single

[11:01] Chraeloos: haha

[11:01] Chraeloos: Ok agreed

[11:01] darcon Xue: we are all responcible and it is unavoidabel 🙂

[11:01] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): darcon, yes; ;and that means there is a pragmatic dimension to knowledge; I can, relatie to what I want to accomplish, be said to know things

[11:01] Chraeloos: Ok are the skeptics presupposing stoicism?

[11:02] darcon Xue: skeptics are being skeptics 🙂

[11:02] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Chrae, well, Sextus came before the Stoics (I think) and no, they presuppose only rhetoric, conventions, and disputes

[11:02] darcon Xue: but they are not skeptics all the time 🙂

[11:02] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Skepticism can only arise if there are unsettled disputes

[11:03] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): People thought Hitler was alive and hiding in Argentina (some did) until the Soviet Union finally revealed they had his body

[11:03] Chraeloos: which there always are, depending on perception

[11:03] Sulamis: his maxilar

[11:04] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Chraeloos, some disputes, but prceptgion resolves others.

[11:04] Chraeloos: sure

[11:04] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Like do any of us really believe that they are they only ones in this chat?

[11:04] Chraeloos: So is it unfair for the skeptics to say that nothing is certain?

[11:04] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Our perceptions, thoughts, and history, tell us differently

[11:04] The Friend I Never Met music box: 3:54

[11:04] The Friend I Never Met music box: stopped music …

[11:05] Chraeloos: based on what you believe, yes

[11:05] Chraeloos: someone else might disagree

[11:05] Sulamis: Que sei eu do que serei, eu que não sei o que sou (Fernando Pessoa), meaning, What do I know of what I will be, me who dont know who I am

[11:05] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Well, but then, there is that someone else–and I’m certain of her existence

[11:06] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Sulamis, I like that; who said it?

[11:06] Chraeloos: I like that Sulamis

[11:06] Sulamis: me too Chraelloos

[11:06] Sulamis: is souds beautiful in Portuguese

[11:06] darcon Xue: you are who you are 🙂

[11:07] darcon Xue: Você é o que você é 🙂

[11:07] Sulamis: l`Etre est l`Etre

[11:07] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Everything sounds beautifiul in a foreign language; a Spanish speaker told me she thought English was so beautiful compared to Spanish. Ii went ‘huh?”

[11:07] Chraeloos: lol no kidding

[11:08] Josiane Llewellyn: a sense of mystery, if you don’t know the language.

[11:08] Sulamis: anyone speaks hebraic?

[11:08] darcon Xue: 🙂

[11:08] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): The real test is whether it still sounds beautiful when translated, I think

[11:08] Chraeloos: Do you think that in our society we would accept a skeptic philosophy more or less than in ancient times?

[11:08] Chraeloos: nope, Sulamis

[11:08] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Well, we have disputes; are groping toward an elusive consensus

[11:09] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): It seems we could make a case that we need more, not less dogmatism.

[11:09] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Something to believe iin

[11:09] Sulamis: the name of God, that the jews dont write, means The Being is the Being

[11:09] Prax (praxisfield): what is “belief”?

[11:09] Sulamis: so i was told

[11:09] darcon Xue: I am who I am?

[11:09] Josiane Llewellyn: More people today have a strong belief in science, in the facts that science discovers and uses.

[11:09] Chraeloos: Right, but is science limited to our ability to express it?

[11:10] Sulamis: yes darcon

[11:10] Sulamis: Descartes had a say about that

[11:10] darcon Xue: yes, I am god 🙂

[11:10] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): darcon, you’re Popeye?

[11:10] Josiane Llewellyn: 🙂

[11:10] Sulamis: well, you are not far from it

[11:10] Chraeloos: Many theories have been proven wrong as we are more capable in expressing ideas we couldn’t express before

[11:10] darcon Xue: I am all there is 🙂

[11:10] Sulamis: yes

[11:10] darcon Xue: I am love 🙂

[11:10] Sulamis: you are microcosmos

[11:10] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): You’re a hunk, dar, but you are *definitely* not all there is. lol

[11:11] darcon Xue: Popeye is love?

[11:11] Chraeloos: So who’s to say the same thing won’t happen in the future

[11:11] darcon Xue: I am 🙂

[11:11] Chraeloos: ?

[11:11] Josiane Llewellyn: Yes, our language has grown more precise and also more abstract.

[11:11] Sulamis: Popeye is god?

[11:11] darcon Xue: Yes, god is love 🙂

[11:11] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): ok, I take back the Popeye comment; it seems to have derailed things. lol

[11:11] Sulamis: I hear someone being spanked, or is it the fire crackling?

[11:12] darcon Xue: You are god Rhia love 🙂

[11:12] Chraeloos: lol

[11:12] darcon Xue: Goddess 🙂

[11:12] ergan Breuilly: un hédoniste!**)le plaisir, juste le plaisir de jouir de tout!*

[11:12] ergan Breuilly: a hedonist! **) fun, just the pleasure of enjoying it! *

[11:12] Chraeloos: Okay, we digress.

[11:13] Chraeloos: Is skepticism more valid based on the culture it is in?

[11:13] Sulamis: lol we do

[11:13] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Chraeloos, you think? lol

[11:13] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Chareloos, only a skeptic would say skepticism is more valid in a particular culture

[11:13] darcon Xue: enjoying everything needing nothing 🙂

[11:14] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): But then the true skeptic would say you can’t make that choice–again, an escape from responsibility seems lurking right ’round the corner.

[11:14] Sulamis: anything only gains value springing form a certain culture

[11:14] Chraeloos: lol it’s just a question

[11:14] Chraeloos: So then which culture suits skepticism the best?

[11:15] Sulamis: mmmm

[11:15] Sulamis: we believe in science and buyiing things, so we asre not skeptics

[11:15] ergan Breuilly: must leave bye all & thx!*)!

[11:16] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): bye ergan!

[11:16] Lena LeLena Lebye

[11:16] Sulamis: bye

[11:16] Chraeloos: bye

[11:16] Chraeloos: agreed Sulamis haha

[11:16] darcon Xue: 🙂

[11:16] Chraeloos: I think the skeptics emerged at a time when they were almost needed

[11:16] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Sulumis, so true

[11:16] Chraeloos: They spurred a reaction and moved things forward

[11:17] darcon Xue: yes, skeptics are very welcome 🙂

[11:17] Sulamis: the previous generations believed in god, family and he state

[11:17] Sulamis: so they werent skeptics either

[11:18] Sulamis: the hippies believed in peace and love

[11:18] Lena Le: 🙂

[11:18] Sulamis: everibody believes in something

[11:18] Chraeloos: sorry guys, I’m moving at the end of the month so someones about to come see the apartment, I’ll be back and forth for a min

[11:18] Prax (praxisfield): “belief” = what we hope to be trye without knowing it for sure?

[11:18] darcon Xue: Religious people are the most skeptics 🙂

[11:18] Prax (praxisfield): *true

[11:19] Sulamis: why?

[11:19] Pasión Cri d’Amour (naomi.plodnaco): how so ar?

[11:19] darcon Xue: they believe they are apart from all there is (god)

[11:19] Lena Le: sorry i have to go.. nice to meet you all

[11:20] darcon Xue: so they think they need “religare” with god

[11:20] Sulamis: bye Lena Le

[11:20] Pasión Cri d’Amour (naomi.plodnaco): chao lena

[11:20] Lena Le: 🙂

[11:20] Sulamis: mmm

[11:20] Sulamis: religare is first with oneself darcon

[11:20] darcon Xue: Have a nice time Lena love 🙂

[11:20] Lena Le: ty

[11:20] Sulamis: that is what religion is good for

[11:20] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): tc, Lena

[11:20] darcon Xue: yes,” know thyself””

[11:21] Sulamis: mmm, not exactly

[11:21] darcon Xue: you not need religion to know your own heart

[11:21] Sulamis: religious people dont seek kowledge

[11:21] Pasión Cri d’Amour (naomi.plodnaco): wel li disagree

[11:21] darcon Xue: religous people seek to distrac they minds

[11:22] darcon Xue: we know all already

[11:22] Pasión Cri d’Amour (naomi.plodnaco): I think religious people may believe absolute knowledge comes from there beliefs

[11:22] Sulamis: this religare thing means integrating yourself

[11:22] Sulamis: it is a psychic process, more then an investigation

[11:23] Sulamis: similar to psychoalanilis if you wish

[11:23] Sulamis: psychoanalysis*

[11:23] Josiane Llewellyn: Absolute knowledge would mean they feel they don’t have to investigate.

[11:23] darcon Xue: well, do not matters what you do, you are all there is 🙂

[11:23] Prax (praxisfield): relious people see to discover gods will. . “free thinkers”, ie not regligous, seek truth for themselves

[11:24] Sulamis: i would be very unhappy if i was all there is

[11:24] Sulamis: who would dance with me?

[11:24] darcon Xue: because you are not aware about all there is 🙂

[11:24] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Wasn’t there a Billy Idol song about tht, Sulamis?

[11:24] Pasión Cri d’Amour (naomi.plodnaco): not only do they seek God will but recive knowledge in relation to conduct in society

[11:24] Sulamis: ah, so there is more then I

[11:25] darcon Xue: yes, you are alone in this roon 🙂

[11:25] Sulamis: oh

[11:25] Josiane Llewellyn: ?

[11:25] darcon Xue: we are one 🙂

[11:25] Sulamis: ah

[11:25] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): One wha t? lol

[11:25] darcon Xue: one love 😀

[11:25] Josiane Llewellyn: But then we would have all knowledge of one another, and we don’t. 🙂

[11:26] Sulamis: knowledge in the biblican sense?

[11:26] darcon Xue: we dont’t? 🙂

[11:26] Sulamis: biblical*

[11:26] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Sulamis!

[11:26] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone) giggles

[11:26] Sulamis: well, we may

[11:26] Sulamis smile

[11:26] darcon Xue: 🙂

[11:26] Sulamis: be one right her on the carpet

[11:27] Josiane Llewellyn: I am skeptical now. 🙂

[11:27] Pasión Cri d’Amour (naomi.plodnaco): 🙂

[11:27] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Sulamis, don’t think Karl would like that. lol

[11:27] darcon Xue: lol

[11:27] Chraeloos: Me either!

[11:27] Sulamis: it was darcon idea

[11:27] Pasión Cri d’Amour (naomi.plodnaco): lol

[11:27] Chraeloos: lol

[11:27] darcon Xue: lol

[11:27] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): lol

[11:27] darcon Xue: 😀

[11:28] darcon Xue: what would you like to be about it ? 🙂

[11:28] darcon Xue: fear or love?

[11:28] Sulamis: i would like to be on top

[11:28] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Yes, let’s blame it on darcon.

[11:28] darcon Xue: yes! 😀

[11:28] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): Shame! Shame! ::rubs one index finger on the other::

[11:28] darcon Xue: I like her always on top 🙂

[11:29] Josiane Llewellyn: The will become one at any moment now, lol

[11:29] Josiane Llewellyn: they

[11:29] darcon Xue: lol

[11:29] Sulamis: a lesson in philosophy closing in a … how do you say it in english?

[11:29] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): um, who’s the ‘she’ here, darcon?

[11:29] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone) takes a step away from him

[11:29] darcon Xue: 😀

[11:30] Chraeloos: haha

[11:30] Chraeloos: ok I think the discussion is officially over, sorry about being awol for a bit there

[11:30] Chraeloos: lol

[11:30] Chraeloos: Feel free to stick around though

[11:30] Josiane Llewellyn: I need to go now, nice meeting all of you

[11:30] Rhiannon of the Birds (rhiannon.dragoone): It’s ok, Chrae; you did a greata job

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Tuesday Dec 27 Reading and Philosophy

  1. I feel this is among the most vital information for me. And i am happy studying your article. However should statement on few basic things, The website taste is great, the articles is in point of fact nice :D. Excellent job, cheers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s