Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (180824)	1/31/2012 11:28:53 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541759

Well, you have my curiosity about Tillich now-lol. But I think Sartre would say: "why not just make a clean cut and not spend a moment investigating him (based on no knowledge that is true). I think Sartre would say Tillich was not facing reality, but trying to parse it. I am sure Tillich is smart, but I have read smart. Was he smarter than Russell, Whitehead, or Einstein? Not likely, so what is he talking about? Russell, Whitehead and Einstein all considered the same subject as Tillich I am sure, if not Tillich himself. Russell and Sartre were stark and Sartra's book Nausea reflected both of their conclusions. Einstein was a romantic of sorts and allowed himself to go with the flow and embraced his tribe, but still he believed only in the wonder of the universe (whatever that is). Whitehead was purely intellectual and a bit crazy, but one of my favorites-lol. He thought consciousnes was a third system in the universe, as do I. I guess what I am saying is that none of the above, felt it was worth their time to read guys like Tillich, I think. I sure never heard of them mention him or Kierkegaard. So using logic, if the best and the brightest found nothing worthwhile in Kirkegasard or Tillich, what are the chances I would. Those guys, and their buddies, are sort of the final authority for me.