Jump to content






Photo

Is Peikoff's "Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy" necessary reading?

Peikoff essay reading

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#21 Dennis Hardin

Dennis Hardin

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,494 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Pedro, California
  • Interests:Philosophy, psychology (Ph. D., licensed therapist)

Posted 04 March 2012 - 08:11 PM



Oddly enough, as I'm reading ItOE, Rand's epistemology and Skinner's epistemology are remarkably generalizable, while differing in several specifics [free will, among them], and I think everyone who is interested in Ayn Rand's epistemology would most certainly benefit from studying Skinner.


From Wikipedia:

Skinner called his particular brand of behaviorism "Radical" behaviorism. Radical behaviorism is the philosophy of the science of behavior. It seeks to understand behavior as a function of environmental histories of reinforcing consequences.. . Unlike less austere behaviorisms, it does not accept private events such as thinking, perceptions, and unobservable emotions in a causal account of an organism's behavior.


You may have noticed that Rand considers thinking to play a major role in the "causal account of a (human) organism's behavior."

"Skinner's epistemology"? Oddly ehough, without thinking, there is no such thing as epistemology.


1. Surprise surprise, wikipedia is wrong. You would have known this if you had read anything by B. F. Skinner, or post-Skinnerian philosophers/psychologists. My recommendation is to start out with About Behaviorism by B. F. Skinner for a satisfactory, basic introduction to Skinner's philosophy.
http://www.amazon.co...30887362&sr=8-1


I don’t think your insulting, incoherent, rambling diatribe deserves a response, but I will provide one anyway, just to put my position on the record.

Here is what B.F. Skinner (and presumably Ravana) calls “thinking.”

The present argument is this: mental life and the world in which it is lived are inventions. They have been invented on the analogy of external behavior occurring under external contingencies. Thinking is behaving. The mistake is in allocating the behavior to the mind.

About Behaviorism, p. 115


To twist words in such a way as to define thinking in terms of external behavior is to define it out of existence. And to wallow in the bowels of insanity.

How in God’s name you think such bunk in any way relates to Objectivist epistemology is too much for my “mind” to comprehend. There is no such thing as “Skinner’s epistemology.” When you use the word “epistemology,” you obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

And BTW, as a Ph.D. in psychology, I am sorry to report that I have endured the dreadful torture of reading Skinner at great length. I have no intention of subjecting myself to further such torture by making any additional contributions to this inane thread.

#22 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 05 March 2012 - 02:19 PM

For what reason do I continue to post? For the above mentioned reason: the exercising of my philosophic repertoire, and, to be quite honest, functional proselytization. About 3 years ago, I had experienced a radical philosophical change [IE lost my faith in god], and was philosophically void. Predictably, I was initially influenced by Marxism, as, ironically for poor Marx, the ethics and politics of Jesus and Karl Marx are generalizable [IE similar].
One day, an individual posted a comment on my youtube page: "I see you've posted videos on The Communist Manifesto. A person I've learned a lot from is Ayn Rand, I would highly recommend reading some of her works." A few days later, I watched Ayn Rand's interview with Mike Wallace on youtube. That interview changed my life.
Why do I continue to post on this website? Because I would like to live in a world in which its individuals are influenced by Skinner, as I have been. Whether he was observant of this or not, I suspect that this was the reason of the young man who recommended Ayn Rand to me on my youtube channel.

- Ravana

Ravana,
Those "philosophical voids" due ot the loss of belief in a specifc philosophy or religion are quite interesting psychologically because they often result in a new guru occupying the now vacant position. I think the younger a person is, the more likely this is going to happen.

"I would like to live in in a world in which its individuals are influenced by Skinner", you wrote.

The problem with having a guru is that the adherents tend to idealize the guru's work.

#23 Robert Campbell

Robert Campbell

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 3,582 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:psychological theory, self-esteem, classical music, jazz, blues, music history

Posted 05 March 2012 - 09:05 PM

Ravana,

Welcome to OL!

Three quick thoughts:

(1) "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" is worth reading. Some minor features look to me to be distinctly Peikovian as well as unhelpful to the overall argument, but the views expressed do appear to be largely Rand's. (One peculiarity of Peikoff's philosophical development is that he may never have read anything by Quine. At least, there is no reference to Quine in his doctoral dissertation on "logical ontologism.")

(2) The "workshop" appendix that was added to ITOE in 1990 is fascinating, but keep in mind that it's been edited, and no one outside of a very narrow circle has ever had access to the original recordings. One bad sign: the participants are identified by code letters, supposedly to spare Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger some trivial embarrassment. (And, without the code letters, the reader would know that several participants were not, in fact, professors—for what that's worth.)

(3) Have you read Beyond Freedom and Dignity (the book that Rand was reacting to, in her critique of Skinner)? And what have you read about behaviorism that is not by Burrhus Frederic Skinner?

Robert Campbell

#24 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,019 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:14 PM




Oddly enough, as I'm reading ItOE, Rand's epistemology and Skinner's epistemology are remarkably generalizable, while differing in several specifics [free will, among them], and I think everyone who is interested in Ayn Rand's epistemology would most certainly benefit from studying Skinner.


From Wikipedia:

Skinner called his particular brand of behaviorism "Radical" behaviorism. Radical behaviorism is the philosophy of the science of behavior. It seeks to understand behavior as a function of environmental histories of reinforcing consequences.. . Unlike less austere behaviorisms, it does not accept private events such as thinking, perceptions, and unobservable emotions in a causal account of an organism's behavior.


You may have noticed that Rand considers thinking to play a major role in the "causal account of a (human) organism's behavior."

"Skinner's epistemology"? Oddly ehough, without thinking, there is no such thing as epistemology.


1. Surprise surprise, wikipedia is wrong. You would have known this if you had read anything by B. F. Skinner, or post-Skinnerian philosophers/psychologists. My recommendation is to start out with About Behaviorism by B. F. Skinner for a satisfactory, basic introduction to Skinner's philosophy.
http://www.amazon.co...30887362&sr=8-1


I don’t think your insulting, incoherent, rambling diatribe deserves a response, but I will provide one anyway, just to put my position on the record.

Here is what B.F. Skinner (and presumably Ravana) calls “thinking.”

The present argument is this: mental life and the world in which it is lived are inventions. They have been invented on the analogy of external behavior occurring under external contingencies. Thinking is behaving. The mistake is in allocating the behavior to the mind.

About Behaviorism, p. 115


To twist words in such a way as to define thinking in terms of external behavior is to define it out of existence. And to wallow in the bowels of insanity.

How in God’s name you think such bunk in any way relates to Objectivist epistemology is too much for my “mind” to comprehend. There is no such thing as “Skinner’s epistemology.” When you use the word “epistemology,” you obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

And BTW, as a Ph.D. in psychology, I am sorry to report that I have endured the dreadful torture of reading Skinner at great length. I have no intention of subjecting myself to further such torture by making any additional contributions to this inane thread.

Dennis, it's not helpful when you go off the tracks like this and you do it a lot. I'm saying this while basically agreeing with you. While you do a good job of demonstrating an extremely low tolerance for bs, on a forum like this we need a little more particular explication, especially for the newbies. And you are aware of at least one logical fallacy you've used here at least implicitly are you not?

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#25 Valtiel

Valtiel
  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:42 PM




Oddly enough, as I'm reading ItOE, Rand's epistemology and Skinner's epistemology are remarkably generalizable, while differing in several specifics [free will, among them], and I think everyone who is interested in Ayn Rand's epistemology would most certainly benefit from studying Skinner.


From Wikipedia:

Skinner called his particular brand of behaviorism "Radical" behaviorism. Radical behaviorism is the philosophy of the science of behavior. It seeks to understand behavior as a function of environmental histories of reinforcing consequences.. . Unlike less austere behaviorisms, it does not accept private events such as thinking, perceptions, and unobservable emotions in a causal account of an organism's behavior.


You may have noticed that Rand considers thinking to play a major role in the "causal account of a (human) organism's behavior."

"Skinner's epistemology"? Oddly ehough, without thinking, there is no such thing as epistemology.


1. Surprise surprise, wikipedia is wrong. You would have known this if you had read anything by B. F. Skinner, or post-Skinnerian philosophers/psychologists. My recommendation is to start out with About Behaviorism by B. F. Skinner for a satisfactory, basic introduction to Skinner's philosophy.
http://www.amazon.co...30887362&sr=8-1


I don’t think your insulting, incoherent, rambling diatribe deserves a response, but I will provide one anyway, just to put my position on the record.

Here is what B.F. Skinner (and presumably Ravana) calls “thinking.”

The present argument is this: mental life and the world in which it is lived are inventions. They have been invented on the analogy of external behavior occurring under external contingencies. Thinking is behaving. The mistake is in allocating the behavior to the mind.

About Behaviorism, p. 115


To twist words in such a way as to define thinking in terms of external behavior is to define it out of existence. And to wallow in the bowels of insanity.

How in God’s name you think such bunk in any way relates to Objectivist epistemology is too much for my “mind” to comprehend. There is no such thing as “Skinner’s epistemology.” When you use the word “epistemology,” you obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

And BTW, as a Ph.D. in psychology, I am sorry to report that I have endured the dreadful torture of reading Skinner at great length. I have no intention of subjecting myself to further such torture by making any additional contributions to this inane thread.



As I thought, you don't understand a word of Skinner's philosophy.

To the rest who responded in a more courteous manner: thank you, but I'm done with this website. It's really just pointless to continue arguing this point, I've tried to explain Skinner to Objectivists in the past, but always with disappointing results. Unfortunately the difference in language used by Skinner and those influenced by him is, simply, an unassailable obstacle for Objectivists in understanding his work. Ah well, such is life.

Farewell.

- Ravana
I am not here to take what you have, I am here to make you want something more.
http://www.youtube.c...thedonconsidine

#26 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,480 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:19 PM

Unfortunately the difference in language used by Skinner and those influenced by him is, simply, an unassailable obstacle for Objectivists in understanding his work.

Actually this is inaccurate.

The problem is not semantic.

But from what I see, Mr. Ravana came here to preach, not discuss.

I suggest he procure disciples among disciple material, i.e., insecure seekers of a direction in life or similar, not among people who are philosophically unfriendly to mind-control. (I do agree that Skinner gets oversimplified in Objectivist discussions, at least the ones I have followed, but as Dennis pointed out with a quote, Skinner could get downright creepy.)

I remember reading Walden Two back in my college days (Skinner's novel). The part I remember most because it was such a weird image in a book of that nature (which went on and on about science) was the protagonist, who spent a lot of time discussing the utopia he made, laying down on the ground and positioning himself in the form of a cross as if he were a Jesus-like savior of mankind--and the narrator character being embarrassed by it. (I think I remember that right. I probably should look it up to be accurate. Maybe, or maybe not... If I get time and it nags at me...)

Michael

Know thyself...


#27 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:56 PM

I've tried to explain Skinner to Objectivists in the past, but always with disappointing results. Unfortunately the difference in language used by Skinner and those influenced by him is, simply, an unassailable obstacle for Objectivists in understanding his work. Ah well, such is life.


Child:

First of all, you are not addressing "Objectivists" here.

Second, and I am going to use short simple words so you can follow what I am saying, you selectively distorted Skinnerian "philosophy."

Third, you selectively distorted the responses of the non-Objectivists, myself being one of them.

Finally, when I was in graduate school I studied with two (2) professors who where directly trained by Skinner. You might have found out more than you
could handle had you proceeded with a less dogmatic, true believer gestalt.

Adam
hope you did not leave your rose colored glasses behind because the world out there will blind you worse than you are now...
Posted Image

oops, be careful, you left them behind
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#28 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,480 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:34 AM

Adam,

Look at all the stimuli this dude received and look at the response.

This dude is an organism set to respond to one thing, but not the other. The organism responds to negative, but not positive stimuli.

:)

I hate to go all pop psychology and stuff, but it looks to me like this dude came here seeking performers in a script that was already in his head (similar to the I'm OK You're OK stuff).

Once he got what he needed to act on the script, he played out the rest--i.e., he made his gesture of his perceived superiority (with emphasis on perceived) over "Objectivists," then departed in search of another set of actors.

I wonder who the script really is for. "Objectivists" is merely a symbol for that person.

Until he resolves that issue, he's going to be like a hamster in a running wheel, looping endlessly in the same script.

I wish him well, though. He sounds like he's in a tough place.

Michael

Know thyself...


#29 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,019 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:49 AM

The poor guy couldn't get any traction.

--Brant
and slid off

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#30 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,010 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 07 March 2012 - 11:02 AM

I hate to go all pop psychology and stuff, but it looks to me like this dude came here seeking performers in a script that was already in his head (similar to the I'm OK You're OK stuff).

We had a Scientologist pop in not too long ago, and she was gone almost as quickly. Oh well.
Prandium gratis non est

#31 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 07 March 2012 - 02:30 PM

http://www.anthonyfl...innerdebate.htm

Here is a classic debate between Brand Blanshard (one of my favorite modern philosophers) and B.F. Skinner. I first read this debate back in the early 1970s, in an anthology of modern philosophy, and I was delighted to find it online.

Ghs

#32 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 07 March 2012 - 03:36 PM


2. "Thinking", to Skinner, was not "denied", it was simply re-evaluated as a "Private behavior", observable only by the individual.


You misunderstand Skinner. As he says in his debate with Blanshard, "No major behaviorist has ever argued that science must limit itself to public events.... As a behaviorist, however, I question the nature of such events and their role in the prediction and control of behavior. "

In questioning the "nature of such events," Skinner argues that what we call mental events, or states of consciousness, are nothing but physical events. Physical events are all that exist. As Skinner says:


The organism is not empty, and it is important to study what goes on inside it, but most physiologists are looking for the wrong things. No matter how much they may improve their techniques, they will never find sensations, thoughts, or acts of will.



In other words, thoughts, sensations, etc., do not exist at all, qua mental events.

In philosophy this position is known as reductive materialism. This is the position that Blanshard focuses his criticism on, and it is diametically opposed to Rand's position. As Dennis correctly pointed out, Skinner's position amounts to a outright denial of consciousness.

For the record, I have read a number of books by Skinner, though not in many years. I found him to be crude and simplistic, and at times nearly incomprehensible, on matters relating to philosophy.

Again, for the debate, see: http://www.anthonyfl...innerdebate.htm

Ghs

#33 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 07 March 2012 - 04:44 PM

Ethan:

I followed the link to your YouTube Channel, impressive in terms of appearance...http://www.youtube.c...thedonconsidine.

As you explained, Ethan's philosophy...

"...is mine own, and is still in development. I have been significantly influenced by a number of college professors, and specific authors/ideologists who have influenced me being (chronological order): Stephen King, Malcolm X, Richard Dawkins, Bill Hicks, Ayn Rand, B. F. Skinner, and several artistic works, particularly that of various filmmakers, authors (Asimov, Bradbury), and particularly several video game franchises: Silent Hill, the Ico Series, and Bioshock.

I'm a bisexual with a strong male preference, atheist ("agnostic atheist" to be specific, "atheist" for brevity's sake), influenced by Radical Behaviorism, Objectivism, Empiricism, Probabilistic Determinism, Nihilism, and politically ambiguous at the moment, although leaning toward temporary, immediate planned society, and eventual anarcho-capitalism.

To contact me, please PM, or email me here:
seanthedonconsidine@gmail.com
or add me on skype:
silent_incarceration

Hometown:

River Falls, Wisconsin; Eden Prairie and Chanhassen, Minnesota

Country:

United States

Occupation:

Jimmy Johns.

Schools:

University of Minnesota

Interests:

Reading about philosophy, religion, psychology, cooking, video games (I don't like most video games, I like only games that have valuable aesthetic appeal, games that possess story and plot, and atmosphere, thus I only like certain franchises, such as Silent hill, Bioshock, The Ico Universe, GTA San Andreas, Enter the Matrix, Resident Evil 4, Halo 1,2, Reach, and the Star Wars Battlefront series. I also enjoy Gears of War, Madden, and ATV Offroad Fury. The only sport I care for is football; I'm big fan of th NFL, I usually root for the Packers, Patriots, Steelers, Broncos, Raiders, Chargers, Lions, and Rams. I am an aspiring filmmaker. Indeed, filmmaking is the only future that I can envision myself pursuing.

Movies:

I love movies of aesthetic value, I dislike most mainstream productions, as most of them lack any variability, and genuine substance. I love anything by: M. Night Shyamalan (although everything after The Village is terrible), Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Charlie Kaufman, Christopher Nolan, David Lynch, Darren Aronofsky, Alfred Hitchcock, David Fincher, Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, Ron Howard, The Coen Bros, Gore Verbinski, Tim Burton, Mel Brooks, Denzel Washington, Mel Gibson, Russel Crowe, Leonardo Dicaprio, Will Smith, Christian Bale, Jim Carrey (his serious work, such as The Truman Show, Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind, is amazing). Specifically: Synecdoche, Requiem for a Dream, A Beautiful Mind, The Matrix trilogy, The original Star Wars trilogy (the new ones are mediocre advertising vehicles for George Lucas' action figures), The original Indiana Jones trilogy, Citizen Kane, The Silence of the Lambs, The Blair Witch Project, Signs, The Sixth Sense, most independent films. TV SHOWS: The Twilight Zone, The X-Files, Lost, The first 3 seasons of 24, Dexter, Rick Steve's Europe and various PBS productions, QI, The Boondocks, It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, and my own personal favorite, The Complete Guide to Everything, the greatest podcast ever: http://tcgte.com/

Music:

I enjoy several different genres, but I usually prefer music that is a blend of several different genres. My pet favorite is film scores. SPECIFIC ARTISTS: Trent Reznor, Chopin, Coil, Akira Yamaoka/Melissa Williamson, Maynard James Keenan, Deftones, The Veils, Saul Williams, Immortal Technique, Jonathan Davis, Filter, Marilyn Manson, Tom Waits, Evanescence, Nirvana, VNV Nation, Black Light Burns, Wes Borland, Limp Bizkit, Placebo, Tricky, Beethoven, Bach, Vivaldi, Sigur Ros, Slipknot/Corey Taylor, Ice Cube, Massive Attack, Portishead, Radiohead, Nas, Mobb Deep, The Notorious B.I.G., The Wu-Tang Clan, and various others. John Williams, James Newton Howard, Hans Zimmer, Howard Shore, Angelo Badalamenti, Enya, Yanni, Martin O'Donnell, Michael Giacchino, Clint Mansell, Don Davis, etc.

Books:

Currently reading B. F. Skinner, Ayn Rand, Albert Camus, Richard Dawkins, Stephen King, other various literary and philosophical works (I plan on studying Nietzsche and Wittgenstein soon), and textbooks for classes.

Report profile image violation


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You display intelligence and creativeness.

It would have served you well had you approached the members on OL with intelligence and creativeness.

You would have discovered that many of us had personal experiences with some of the persons that you claim influence you.

Sadly, you chose to interact with a mirage of your own creation and the result is that you gained nothing positive or productive from some folks who are exceptional people and would have freely interacted with you to all of our benefits.

When you decide to return, you will be welcomed back by most of the members.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#34 Stephen Boydstun

Stephen Boydstun

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,806 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Metaphysics; Theory of Concepts and Predication; Philosophy of Science and Mathematics; Philosophy of Mind; Foundations of Ethics; Physics; Mathematics; Biology; Cognitive Science

Posted 12 March 2012 - 05:10 AM

In #3 linked to Greg Browne’s comments here on the synthetic-analytic distinction. Some readers may like to read the following review of Dr. Browne’s book Necessary Factual Truth.

Review
Reference and Necessity: A Rand-Kripke Synthesis?
Roderick T. Long (2005)

#35 Robert Campbell

Robert Campbell

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 3,582 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:psychological theory, self-esteem, classical music, jazz, blues, music history

Posted 19 March 2012 - 08:00 PM

It's really just pointless to continue arguing this point, I've tried to explain Skinner to Objectivists in the past, but always with disappointing results. Unfortunately the difference in language used by Skinner and those influenced by him is, simply, an unassailable obstacle for Objectivists in understanding his work. Ah well, such is life.


I didn't see much evidence that Ethan understood anything that Skinner wrote.

Oh well...

Robert Campbell

#36 Silvana Maria

Silvana Maria
  • Members
  • 4 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bucharest, Romania
  • Interests:Philosophy, Music, Literature, Arts in general.

Posted 18 April 2012 - 09:00 PM

Hello,

I am new to this site, and to be honest, I'm here rather to read than to write, but I couldn't keep myself out of it. And that because you are so far from where the discussion started.

Dear Ravana,
Any sort of text that is in some way related to anything you're interested in is necessary reading. I understand why you dislike Peikoff, I feel the same way as you do, but first of all, you must always remember that he was very close to the mind that made this discussion here possible and she influenced a lot of his writings. Also, do not forget that people change with time, there are a lot of people who, just like him, were attracted to the "personality cult" after a long time of being valuable persons, and the present doesn't change something great that was done in the past. It's like saying some piece of art doesn't mean anything because the artist went insane when he grew old. I will also mention, hoping it won't come out in a rude or anyhow wrong way, that it's a bit ignorant to say you dislike someone so deeply before actually studying his work, his life and what might have caused some of the decisions he took. If you don't read him, there is no way you can have a complete view on him and further more, an intelligent documented opinion. Shorter, what you are doing is judging him (in a very not-objectivist way).

I dearly recommend you read anything, at least if only for the sake of your own precious mind.

Please excuse the grammar mistakes, English is not my first language.

-Silvana Maria
"If you want to be happy - be." ~ Leo Tolstoy

#37 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,480 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 April 2012 - 08:57 AM

Silvana,

Welcome to OL.

What a real pleasure to read something new that looks like a mirror of my own thoughts.

Michael

Know thyself...


#38 Silvana Maria

Silvana Maria
  • Members
  • 4 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bucharest, Romania
  • Interests:Philosophy, Music, Literature, Arts in general.

Posted 21 April 2012 - 09:11 AM

Thank you, sir, hope we will get the change to be a part of many eye-opening discussions.

Silvana
"If you want to be happy - be." ~ Leo Tolstoy




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users