I won’t argue against the sandbox, but your living in the wrong country Carleas if this is your approach to philosophy. Oh fuck… the original definition for syllogism was exactly what your claiming them not to be. It was the literal just a positioning of thoughts and images. Satyr’s pathetic little site even had (may still have, I heard it was redesigned, never checked up) this to a degree built into it’s sections.
Are you going to argue next planes don’t fly, or astronauts don’t actually go to space? Scuba diving isn’t actually about going under the sea? Thats how foolish your statement sounds.
We wouldn’t allow protests under free speech if this was the definition for what constitutes speech. Our political discourse is magically supposed to arise somehow from pissed off, incoherent protesters into legislation apparently in your mind.
Fact of the matter is, and it’s a very solid, impossible under reasonable doubt, back up by a few thousand years of precedent, what Joker presented in that thread as fairly orthodox in it’s approach. He has some fantastic precedent well beyond what I mentioned above for that thread.
Its ironic, you must walk past thousands of comedic cartoons making a point in DC each year, and just utterly fail to understand any single one of them. Do you just stare at them and blink, shouting “that’s not a thesis”?
Philosophy stretches well, well beyond the rules of order and parliamentary procedure they taught you in law school. You got short thrift in your education, I would take your old communications class professors to court for robbing you blind. Nobody but fools actually limit philosophy to the methods your talking about. A idea can’t be fully explored without exploration of the full dialectic, we should be very thankful guys like Joker are exploring classical modes of exposition. You read a thread like that, it’s as if your in ancient Athens, Alexandria, Antioch or Rome listening to the greatest Dog Philosophers denounce the vice and backwardness of society, in it’s contradictions, paving a path through their example to Eudaimonia. That is a fully legitimate form of philosophical exposition. It is directly descended from Diogenes “Republic”, the first satire and critic on Plato’s Republic and Laws. Don’t try to bullshit anyone that that hasn’t been central to the western philosophical tradition since the beginning. It has always been present. Don’t pretend otherwise, being a administrator doesn’t begin to make you historically correct on this. Any definition on political philosophy MUST bend to this.
The same Seneca who wrote The Pumpkinfication of the Divine Claudius also wrote the first Roman Mirrors for Princes for Nero. The two strands of thought are related, Pumpkinfication comes from Cynicism, Mirrors comes from Stoicism, but even that comes from Cynic suppositions that paved the way.
I’m really stumped at just what in political science hasn’t been transformed by that philosophy. You make some very bizarre and off the wall statements sometimes Carleas. Your the administrator, but not the king of philosophy. It shall remain in full effect, around the world, in debates and speeches around the world, and I hope a guy wearing a Obama, Trump, or Hillary mask carrying a sign with a single word on it holds you up in traffic daily, till you get it. Your literally living in the wrong city, you should trade Joker out for his Unibomber Cabin and write great expositions, and Joker can dissapear into the endless throngs of policy protests you apparently turn your nose up to in disgust, cause they aren’t saying ANYTHING.
Its just disturbing to know someone working in national government in DC is this blind to the language of the crowd, the fundamentals of political science. You pretend to be a lawyer, claim to of written your masters on communications… yet everyone walking around you apparently is a unqualified zombie who aren’t worth listening to.
Do you not grasp my concerns here? Both for this site, philosophy universally, and the bizarreness of you seeking a trade and profession, where if we took your statements above as how you actually approach philosophy, especially political philosophy, makes everything you do a literal mockery.
Do others with whom you work think like this? Do you just stand at the windows, laughing as they March by, laughing at those stupid idiots waving signs, as meaningless zombies? “Thats not how democracy works fools, write a tractate, or file a injunction”…
You deeply worry me sometimes Carleas. Your like, Kryptonite to the whole idea behind having a Republic. I don’t think we could technically have elections, certainly not election signs, under your outlook. Ads would be banned. Street corner soliciting to passing cars… what can they say with a image and a few thoughts? The Greek and Roman classics definitely banned… we can’t have them in Carleas outlook, as I pointed out, guys just like Joker we’re a major influence, using similar rhetorical approaches.
You know… the law profession itself as a universally understood medium, open to all to study was Roman Cynicism… the priesthood in Roman kept the lass secret, till one of the scholars of the law school sat on the steps, teaching anyone the law as they passed. The republic wasnt always very Democratic, there deginstely was class tension between those rich enough to become lawyers and the plebians too poor to learn it. Their only experience of it was through being prosecuted. We do a lot to laud the 12 tables, and later on the Plebian and Patrician balance of power, but there was a dark era between.
You really have no idea how dark philosophy would get if we all played by your rules. I’m not merely talking here, but philosophy as a whole, and our nation. We shouldn’t try to defend philosophy by suppressing it. Its idiotic and immature, never really works out for the best in the long run.
I’m very impressed with Joker. He seems to be rounding himself out in philosophy. Any classicist who focuses on philosophy would be nostalgically impressed by many of his posts, including this one here. You should put, as a good example of what a bona ride, orthodox approach to presenting a debate on a political science topic, this thread as a accepted varient. Its rather classical and elegant, works in Ancient Athens and New York. Ancient straight to the point, seem less economy, and mist importantly, it attracted a counterdebator. It has the qualities that make good philosophy so attractive. If he keeps this up, he might become a well known philosopher. Memes are returning back into fashion (as I mentioned Publius Syrus earlier, his mimes were memes), he can refine this into a well honed political instrument for provoking debate.
If your interested in studying rhetoric, any of you, I first urge you to look at Jokers thread. Its a fine start before you crack open the classics. I mean this from the bottom of my heart, I do get excited when I see old forms reemerge, and show they still have vitality. Its very beautiful. Anyone with a love for ancient philosophy should have a appreciation for that thread.