Ecmandu's No Fool

Well then then it seems there is no argument, unless his saying it may rather point to his acting the fool. In which case, certainty takes a dive to a very low level of probability. In which case, again, there can be no argument. Only he can know for sure.

Just out of curiosity, is this debate basically just an exercise in irony?

I found this to be interesting:

kirkcenter.org/index.php/boo … ver-lived/

who is debating whom?

This is the statement:

Proposed: Ecmandu is a Fool with nothing Worthwhile to contribute to Philosophy.

It’s poorly worded since it contains two parts. It can be rephrased as :
Ecmandu is a Fool and he has nothing Worthwhile to contribute to Philosophy.

Ahhh, you edited. :open_mouth:

Ecmandu is arguing the he is a fool and that he has nothing worthwhile to contribute to philosophy.

Yeah man because everything is irony right?

I feel like he’s already won this debate.

This debate could go in Soooo… many directions…
:laughing:

Can’t wait to hear from Ucc.

I really don’t see this “debate” going well for anybody including those reading it.

Kropotkin

Yeah, that’s what I thought will happen as well.

I don’t see the debate going well for Ec, he should have never accepted a debate in which he doesn’t get to pick neither the topic nor the side, and lets his opponent pick any, and with the outcome of the debate deciding whether he’ll be banned or not. Either he’s overconfident, or a fool, since by his own admission he isn’t all knowing.

Won’t this debate end in a sort of paradox? If Uccisore proves Ecmandu isn’t a fool and bans Ecmandu, doesn’t it make Ec a fool for accepting the debate in the first place? :-k

In ecmandu’s defense, i’d say that his concept of social stratification and conspicuous consumption is a worthwhile meme to add to philosophy. however he is a fool for believing that brainwashing men to stop flirting with women will save the world from “war and suicide” as he says.

Philosophy is not like a bank account or bucket where a contribution is a measurable quantity like money or water which is accumulated. What is a contribution to philosophy? What is a worthwhile contribution to philosophy? What is a worthless contribution to philosophy?

money is not measurable, it is an inconsistent mode of trade which can be given in various inconsistent quantities based on mood and culture.

which has more philosophical worth the statement “blablabla” or “the universe is 13.7 billion years old”?

Ecmandu needs to focus and address the points. Maybe he needs a Snickers bar.

OTOH, this might be a clever tactic showing that his posts are nothing more than worthless babble. In that case, brilliant.

That was my first thought.
I can only think of two possible ways out of the paradox. But to state them would be influencing the debate.

But in that case Ucci wins. #-o

You must admit that in terms of foolishness, Ecmandu has a clear advantage.

But foolishness is not tantamount to being a fool. can an autistic savant be considered a fool? yes, ac-
cording to the French, they called them idiot savants.
But if Ec, is an idiot, does not his obvious arguing for the sake of winning show that he is more savant then a fool? Is acting like a fool consistent with being one?

A fool or idiot seems to be similar to a liar.

A liar does not always lie. Not every statement he utters is a lie. Technically, someone could be called a liar even if he lies only once.

Otherwise, one has to establish a threshold for frequency or degree of lying or foolishness.

A fool or idiot is similar to a liar only if he is knowingly acting as a fool or idiot. If, he isn’t, then there is no lie. A true idiot does not know that he
appears to be lying by his acting as an idiot, because he truly is one. If he is acting truthfully albeit
idiotically, but excels at other things then he may be
an idiot savant.

But, I think we should remain neutral in this discussion, and I hope, You will let me know, when I become unaware of the impression some would get of being partial.

Partiality, in fact, is an issue within the real debate on many levels. The first and the most obvious one, regards to current and accepted totality of definitions of the meaning of ‘fool’. The other one, is, whether a liar can be called a liar, simply because he uttered one lie. And a third one, centers around the relative knowledge of a specialist contrasted to the holder of ‘general knowledge’, or of no knowledge at all.