I’d been very ill for a very long time, and during that time I learnt that most aren’t compassionate souls, and I… who have very little empathy for others, would never treat a person in the manner that I have been treated here.
but… all dues being paid up and cashed in… things are better than ever… each day being different and more amazing than the last.
Sauwelios, Yes. Apparently magsj needed some venting, blaming others for her illness or something. Another instance of ridiculous modding on her part.
Then she comes here trying to convince people how superior and happy she is again.
Good old ILP.
Magsj, you’re the very reason I started treating people worse here. Your modding a actions and subsequent aloof and dismissive comments gave me the sign that ILP is nothing to respect, just a place to shit. I try to ignore that and keep posting serious things but it´s increasingly difficult. Thanks for that.
I just want more threads about philosophy, and not so many threads about ideal societies and bigotry and existential angst and expressions of a feeling of powerlessness as spite or whatever.
I mean, some people may not know this, but ever since some time a while back, philosophy is a lot more like science than it is like literature. No one really gives a shit about continental philosophy other than as an aside or as a primer to philosophy so that people can develop the aptitude to understand philosophy of science. I mean honestly…does anyone give a shit about Heidegger? Or Camus? Or any of those other people who I’m sorry but that just aren’t that interesting and that just don’t say that much? I would hope not. Go and read some Nietzsche, and find out what he said. Then move on and get away from all the self-centered “how to live my life” philosophy and get toward the objective understanding of what the hell you’re actually looking at. It blows my mind how people address these questions in the wrong order and live fucked up lives because of it. What am I looking at? How should I act? But that’s what so many people do.
Fixed, for the record, I’m not talking about you here. But, the “serious philosophy” threads aren’t really serious either. It’s usually just someone reciting something they’ve picked up, or someone making a long winded rant full of loaded terms and so full of ambiguity and bias that it’s pointless to even read. I mean, I don’t care if people can connect logical dots or color in the lines or how pretty they can make their argument look by painting a layer of reason over their emotions. I want to fucking learn something. There’s no one here teaching. It’s just one predictable rant after another and then another identical thread to match the last one where the subject came to a deadlock in debate. Fuck it let’s not keep going toward a solution. We’re too dumb for that. Let’s argue until we’re deadlocked, then start another fucking thread and do it again over and over.
And I really don’t understand the hatred for magsj. I mean, she gives as much a shit as anyone else. It’s not like we have great contributors who are actually carrying on proper or even reasonable discourse in most cases. What’s she supposed to be here to protect? People’s feelings? People’s serious attempts at philosophy?
Real philosophy doesn’t happen online. At best, people who are interested come around and chat about it.
You can go to a forum with more strict rules and read their little articles and all, but in the end it’s the same thing. It doesn’t matter what the logo looks like or how the mods behave, if you want real philosophy then you have to be in school for it, or study it on your own.
Interesting. Ive never actually seen a post of yours that presented any type of philosophy though - Can you point me to some. Questionark defect on this keyboard.
Lol. You are so out of touch.
About which part? I mean seriously do you see people around here who give a shit? There’s like 4 people who flood every conversation with horseshit about gender. A bunch of confused children. You can’t have a real conversation about an academic topic with a bunch of people who don’t know it. Philosophy isn’t just arguing and nit picking Nietzsche.
When I see someone with a problem with authority at my age of almost 35, I think, “this person isn’t smart enough to figure out how to do what they want”.
Do you think the ubermench complained about authority? Or throw rocks at it? Or did he make an example, himself of how to be so that he could get his rewards?
I’ll take that as a no.
You have to go back a good way to be honest. I’ve asked questions about modal logic, defining objects, randomness, constructing ontologies and I’ve done a number of threads on the old subject/object thing that so many people get stuck on. Along with all sorts of other things that relate to analytic philosophy. The problem is that no one here, on the internet philosophy board gives a shit about real philosophy. They’re all here looking for feel-good reads to validate themselves. They get all huffy when people can’t take them seriously. I swear man, after my 2nd year of college no one was talking about Nietzsche anymore. No matter how much people try and decipher more and more meaning by studying his work like it’s the bible, it just is what it is. A brilliant man’s reaction to the world. But let’s be honest…how may of his readers do you think are capable of living up to what he would want them to? How many do you think can even understand that? There isn’t a lot of philosophy aptitude out there in the world. It’s spread pretty thin. I’m not trying to bash N just to rile you up. I’m just talking about the real fact of the matter that philosophy didn’t stop 50 years ago, or 100 years ago or 1000 years ago and it just sucks that almost no one is up to speed and that they’d all rather declare victory than take a step further in the direction of knowing more.
It’s easy to sit and say, “I’ve never seen you post about real philosophy”. But you and I both know that the only way that’s true is if you’ve really not looked.
I mean I honestly think that a lot of people here are very childish. That might seem backward coming from the caricature of me that some of you may have in your minds. I don’t mean like they drink and smoke and aren’t responsible, but like they think like children. I mean really…all this chest banging, dick thrusting, racket making over jack shit. Hurt feelings. It really makes me think less of a lot of people here. I see a handful of people who are able to write. They get considered the better philosophers of the boards. But even then, the best writing you see here is like “C” work in any decent school. God save us if you guys are reading things here and finding them to be profound.
Philosophy students are usually completely aphilosophical. I talk them out of their idea that theyve thought about things within minutes. Philosophy isnt someting you can study like history. Either you are a philosopher, or not. If you are, you end up understanding all other philosophies. If you are not, you end up at best skimming through a bunch of books and thinking you know whats in them.
My philosophy is only two and a half years old. I have no idea what youre on about with your 50 years or 100 years, honestly.
I have looked. And youve still not given me a source.
Well, once you finish understanding the rest of the philosophers as you say, you’ll realize that your philosophy isn’t new. I’m not trying to upset you but how on earth do you think you’ve come up with a new philosophy?
And while it doesn’t really matter, it’s a fact that your claim about philosophy students is both a radical one, and an unsubstantiated one. I suppose you could give me a few anecdotal pieces of evidence for your claim if you want, but my criticism would still stand.
You’re welcome to search my posts. I had a thread about identifying and distinguishing objects not to long ago. I usually make threads like that once in a while to give people who are being stupid a basic example of how you have to think in order to be thinking correctly. If you don’t know how to distinguish and identify objects then you can’t define things and if you can’t define things then you’re incoherent. Most people don’t know how to define things, can’t recognize incoherence and literally just blabber nonsense and call it philosophy then pat themselves on the back for literally nothing.
I think you’re an alright guy. I don’t think you’re an asshole or anything like that, but come on man. Get some sleep and read this thread again and compare my reasoning here to your repetitive attacks on my person regarding whether or not you think I’ve talked about philosophy in 16000 posts. You and I both know you’re wrong on that one.
I think you’re an alright guy too. You talking to me a about pilosophy is like a dog telling a man to walk on two legs.
Your object/subject ponderings are fine, but you can find that stuff in a dictionary. People learn it when they are 6, usually.
Ouch. And what can philosophy teach us about the lives we live – as opposed to the limitations of philosophy in doing precisely that? For example, what has it taught us over the past, say, 3,000 years?
It can teach you how to tell whether you’'re reasoning correctly. Most people aren’t interested in that though.
I am… ??
Do you think the same after reading Humanarchy?
But my point is there is no way [objectively] in which to determine who is reasoning correctly when behaviors come into conflicts. Instead, in places like this, folks will often just assume it is that they are. And then when others don’t agree that is when the exchange can devolve into a flurry of ad hominems.
The problem [from my perspective] revolves around recognizing the limitations of philosophical language in contexts such as these.
From my own experience then what most folks are not interested in is exploring this further from the perspective of dasein and conflicting goods. Why? Because [again in my opinion] to do so might bring them to the conclusion that objectivism itself is the problem here.
…Instead you “Think” that it is impossible to think correctly, so why bother to try. I would have to put that one on the top of the list of “How to not think correctly”.
No, I situate thoughts I have about these things in particular contexts and try to show how people can think about the context from differing [conflicting] points of view that objectivists are then unable to distill down to the most rational point of view. Aside from “up there” of course.
The difference between your objectivism and the objectivism of many others I have encountered is that you refuse even to engage your theoretical constructs [your definitions] out in the world of actual conflicting behaviors. Whether with respect to the Mormon couple or John and Mary and the unborn child or any particular new context you might introduce] it always comes down to either agreeing with the internal logic of your theoretical abstractions or not.