Brutish exile of the potentiality of an investigation

A forum about the forums

Moderator: Carleas

Brutish exile of the potentiality of an investigation

Postby Guide » Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:47 pm

Note: Imbeciles, of the kind that can not suffer to think or to explain to themselves what they are saying, let alone to others, such as the egotistical Meno, are kindly requested not to answer. Especially those who are under the constant authority of, and continually devote the tribute of a mindless chatter of socially popular imbecilities such as "reason not emotion", to the cause of the imbecility of speaking in wholly empty slogans that preclude intelligent discussion.


---

Due to the inhuman act, of one of the so-called moderators, an important thread was removed and exiled. Yet, how can a moderator know what is philosophic, and what is not philosophic, unless they claim to be a sage in possession of the fullness of wisdom? Practical considerations are an insufficient irrational mask when the destruction of the possibility of philosophizing is under that mask sneering forth at philosophy endlessly.
Guide
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Brutish exile of the potentiality of an investigation

Postby gib » Sat Oct 20, 2018 1:23 am

Guide wrote:Note: Imbeciles, of the kind that can not suffer to think or to explain to themselves what they are saying, let alone to others, such as the egotistical Meno, are kindly requested not to answer. Especially those who are under the constant authority of, and continually devote the tribute of a mindless chatter of socially popular imbecilities such as "reason not emotion", to the cause of the imbecility of speaking in wholly empty slogans that preclude intelligent discussion.


You insulted Meno.


Guide wrote:Due to the inhuman act, of one of the so-called moderators, an important thread was removed and exiled. Yet, how can a moderator know what is philosophic, and what is not philosophic, unless they claim to be a sage in possession of the fullness of wisdom? Practical considerations are an insufficient irrational mask when the destruction of the possibility of philosophizing is under that mask sneering forth at philosophy endlessly.


It's not the moderators job to distinguish between true philosophy and false philosophy. It's there job to remind people of the rules and to enforce them. And if they do so unfairly... find a different forum.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.
-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.
-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.
-Milo Yiannopoulus

Fuck your feelings, snowflake
-Milo Yiannopoulos
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Brutish exile of the potentiality of an investigation

Postby MagsJ » Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:51 pm

Moved to Meta, where your forum query will be looked into.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18613
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Brutish exile of the potentiality of an investigation

Postby encode_decode » Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:26 pm

    I totally agree with you gib and I think you put "it" in clear enough terms for an imbecile to understand(well I hope so anyway).

    I hope you don't mind me taking a snippet of what you wrote and commenting.

    gib wrote:. . . to distinguish between true philosophy and false philosophy . . .

    Should be . . . perhaps . . . the aim of the modern philosopher. The moderators aim would be to enforce the rules of the forum.

    No matter what effort anyone puts into their posts from a philosophical standpoint, if a post breaks a forum rule then the post itself is broken and is not really of philosophical value, after all this is a philosophical forum with its own set of rules, much like any other philosophy forum. The forum is not made for one person.

    Oh and nobody likes to pat a dog that bites anybody. If that dog bites another person then that act increases the likelihood that the dog could bite me.

    On the other hand, what would I know?

    :lol:
    User avatar
    encode_decode
    Philosopher
     
    Posts: 1215
    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

    Re: Brutish exile of the potentiality of an investigation

    Postby gib » Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:54 am

    encode_decode wrote:
      I totally agree with you gib and I think you put "it" in clear enough terms for an imbecile to understand(well I hope so anyway).

      I hope you don't mind me taking a snippet of what you wrote and commenting.

      gib wrote:. . . to distinguish between true philosophy and false philosophy . . .

      Should be . . . perhaps . . . the aim of the modern philosopher. The moderators aim would be to enforce the rules of the forum.

      No matter what effort anyone puts into their posts from a philosophical standpoint, if a post breaks a forum rule then the post itself is broken and is not really of philosophical value, after all this is a philosophical forum with its own set of rules, much like any other philosophy forum. The forum is not made for one person.

      Oh and nobody likes to pat a dog that bites anybody. If that dog bites another person then that act increases the likelihood that the dog could bite me.

      On the other hand, what would I know?

      :lol:


      Encode,

      It's been too long, my friend, since we've talked.

      Thanks for backing me on this.

      Who knows what the philosopher's aim ought to be. What philosophy and its function are is, perhaps not surprisingly, a philosophical matter in itself. As the philosophies of the times change, so too, I would expect, will our thoughts on what the function of philosophy is. It leads one to look for a constant through the flux--maybe what the social/biological function of philosophy is. What has philosophy been doing for us as a species? Figure that out, and maybe we will figure out what the philosopher's aim ought to be.

      The clarification of ideas? The improvement of mankind? The attainment of truth? Of wisdom? Of the next great lie for the masses to consume?

      I don't know if you've had the pleasure of conversing with Faust--he doesn't hang around here much anymore--but he thought the function of the philosopher was to take the common assumption of his society and show their implication using clear logical and reason, to show where the consistencies lie and where the inconsistencies lies, and thereby (hopefully) bring society to a clearer picture of reality and truth.

      My thoughts on the question are that the philosopher is a regulator of ideas. Ideas are passed around from one person to another all the time. We are inescapably immersed in a web of communication, and ideas are not only passed around, but transformed, mutated, and misinterpreted. It's like a network of computers that not only download and upload programs from each other, but change the program as it passes from one node to another. Given enough time, what was once a functional program can be transformed into a virus. To prevent this from happen, critical thinkers like the philosopher are needed, special computers in the network whose function it is to fix broken programs, to act like the anti-virus to the system. As philosophers, we regulate the transformation of information as it is communicated to and from members of society. Our function is to ensure that the ideas that are passed around and consumed are healthy ideas, ideas that more readily contribute to the improvement of life rather than its degradation.

      An interesting implication of this is that the health of a society may not always require knowing the truth. Sometimes the most healthy thing to believe is a lie (though I think this is rare). So those who think philosophers ought to always pursue the truth may not agree with me in all cases. What about you encode? What do you think the philosopher's aim ought to be?
      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

      I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.
      -Ben Shapiro

      ...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.
      -Ben Shapiro

      We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.
      -Milo Yiannopoulus

      Fuck your feelings, snowflake
      -Milo Yiannopoulos
      User avatar
      gib
      resident exorcist
       
      Posts: 8816
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
      Location: in your mom

      Re: Brutish exile of the potentiality of an investigation

      Postby encode_decode » Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:04 pm

      @gib

      It sure has been a while since we've talked. Heads up, you will likely have to pick at my response just like one would pick at food. Not particularly appetising to everyone as it lacks a completed structure. I have pretty much just slapped this response together - thrown the food at the plate if you get my drift.

      gib wrote:Thanks for backing me on this.

      You presented a balanced viewpoint as far I am concerned. I know from experience and observation that we as forum users(and I don't just mean you and I but rather, quite a number of people here) get away with a fair bit of unnecessary behaviour, however, the line has to be drawn somewhere. In this case I am guessing that the line has been drawn on behalf of a number of users and not just Meno as I myself felt uncomfortable watching what was going on. I was impressed to see how Meno handled a situation like this.

      The peculiar title of this thread indicates to me a puzzling usage of the word brutish given the behaviour that I have witnessed from the original poster toward Meno. It more or less demonstrates a double standard on the original posters part. I have seen aggressive behaviour between interlocutors but rarely do I see insults so plainly as those that have been delivered in recent times.

      Moving along . . .

      gib wrote:Who knows what the philosopher's aim ought to be. What philosophy and its function are is, perhaps not surprisingly, a philosophical matter in itself. As the philosophies of the times change, so too, I would expect, will our thoughts on what the function of philosophy is. It leads one to look for a constant through the flux--maybe what the social/biological function of philosophy is. What has philosophy been doing for us as a species? Figure that out, and maybe we will figure out what the philosopher's aim ought to be.

      Yes, I think what you have written here should be considered by philosophers and I also think that the "world" is like a jigsaw puzzle and each discipline needs to serve humanity as a whole. When other disciplines point out what they need from philosophy and philosophy points out what philosophy has to offer then the jigsaw parts go together much better - the picture is not so broken. It works like a negotiation is what I am trying to say. If someone who considers themselves a philosopher does not even care about the rest of humanity then I fail to see how that person is even a philosopher. But this is based on the principle that philosophy is a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour(that would be, the philosopher pointing out what is good for the rest of us).

      On the other hand there is the prevailing view that philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. It is important here to see it's value to academia which in turn should have value to the greater "world".

      Personally I am happy that philosophy is seen as more than one thing at the dictionary level - although logically it would be more rational to have philosophy seen as one thing.

      gib wrote:The clarification of ideas? The improvement of mankind? The attainment of truth? Of wisdom? Of the next great lie for the masses to consume?

      Not just at the dictionary level it would appear; you have listed philosophy as having potentially five different functions. I get the feeling that you(and I do mean you gib) could possibly list many more functions than this.

      gib wrote:I don't know if you've had the pleasure of conversing with Faust--he doesn't hang around here much anymore--but he thought the function of the philosopher was to take the common assumption of his society and show their implication using clear logical and reason, to show where the consistencies lie and where the inconsistencies lies, and thereby (hopefully) bring society to a clearer picture of reality and truth.

      I have witnessed Faust in action but never had the pleasure to make Faust's acquaintance. I can see where Faust is coming from, from what you are saying. I think that the philosopher should be sensible and realise that the human experience includes joy and other less rational features. Rationality has its place but I get the feeling that we are not meant to exist as less than we are by taking away parts of us that have been with us for a long time. Take humour for instance - what rational purpose does it serve if the word rational is taken to mean: based on or in accordance with reason or logic? This is when philosophy and science naturally extends itself to investigation of things that don't make sense at an everyday level, for example: we now know that happiness can help us live longer - last time I checked, humour can be a sub-category of happiness. At the very least humour can lead to happiness.

      A clearer picture it seems, is what we are all after here - so all things considered thus far, I have realised that I am jumping from one thing to another quite rapidly and this could serve to confuse the receivers perception of what direction or point that I am trying to take or make in this response to you gib.

      gib wrote:My thoughts on the question are that the philosopher is a regulator of ideas. Ideas are passed around from one person to another all the time. We are inescapably immersed in a web of communication, and ideas are not only passed around, but transformed, mutated, and misinterpreted. It's like a network of computers that not only download and upload programs from each other, but change the program as it passes from one node to another. Given enough time, what was once a functional program can be transformed into a virus. To prevent this from happen, critical thinkers like the philosopher are needed, special computers in the network whose function it is to fix broken programs, to act like the anti-virus to the system. As philosophers, we regulate the transformation of information as it is communicated to and from members of society. Our function is to ensure that the ideas that are passed around and consumed are healthy ideas, ideas that more readily contribute to the improvement of life rather than its degradation.

      Yes, I don't really think it is necessary for me to add to this. Consider that perhaps it is a good idea that each philosopher is a little different and should seek some healthy basis - all philosophers should understand what a healthy basis for philosophy is and then extensions can be made from that - much like in many cases has already happened and here we are now with a better world(in many regards) with a better quality of life(also in many regards).

      While there are still so many improvements that can be made and are waiting to be made for the sake of other creatures beside ourselves, we have still done a pretty good job for a complicated life-form and many of us realise that we have made many mistakes and would like to see those mistakes rectified as soon as possible.

      gib wrote:An interesting implication of this is that the health of a society may not always require knowing the truth. Sometimes the most healthy thing to believe is a lie (though I think this is rare). So those who think philosophers ought to always pursue the truth may not agree with me in all cases. What about you encode? What do you think the philosopher's aim ought to be?

      Well it is true what you say and this is the "thing" isn't it? Life is not so black and white and many who think it is, suffer immensely with their emotions. Each person needs to have a certain amount of durability when it comes to what life throws at us. What about me? What do I think the philosophers aim ought to be? One thing I would like to assert is that the philosophers aim ought not be to go around trying to insult people or disintegrate any person's wholesome feeling of themselves - at least be gentle and not violently tear a person apart. I could say that the philosophers main aim should be to express what they are trying to express in clear everyday terms for the benefit of the larger "group" rather than getting gratification from fancying themselves as some sort of elite class.

      Still there are times when two or more philosophers use more complex language developed for the sake of a given conversation and this language is designed to progress the philosophy. At the end of the day the final product of philosophy can be distilled into simple everyday terms for the larger group.
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Philosopher
       
      Posts: 1215
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

      Re: Brutish exile of the potentiality of an investigation

      Postby Carleas » Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:11 pm

      Guide wrote:an important thread was removed and exiled.

      Link?

      EDIT: This one?
      User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
      Carleas
      Magister Ludi
       
      Posts: 5850
      Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
      Location: Washington DC, USA

      Re: Brutish exile of the potentiality of an investigation

      Postby gib » Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:25 am

      encode,

      Your posts are always very thought provoking.

      Unfortunately, I have very little time these days to post lengthy replies on ILP. My life isn't what it used to be. I will just have to let your words simmer and express my appreciation for your sharing of them.
      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

      I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.
      -Ben Shapiro

      ...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.
      -Ben Shapiro

      We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.
      -Milo Yiannopoulus

      Fuck your feelings, snowflake
      -Milo Yiannopoulos
      User avatar
      gib
      resident exorcist
       
      Posts: 8816
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
      Location: in your mom


      Return to Meta



      Who is online

      Users browsing this forum: No registered users

      cron