Ecmandu's No Fool

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.

“Fool” does not actually mean stupid or idiotic. A fool is someone who is easily tricked.
And calling one a “liar” is implying the willing repetition of lies … not quite the same as pointing out a lie.

The debate so far is one guy trying to claim the other is smart while simultaneously trying to make him seem foolish while the other guy is trying to claim to be foolish while simultaneously trying to seem smart.

Yes, but the meaning of foolish ,has accepted literal dictionary meanings ,in addition to the use of colloquialism. One of the pivotal points in the argument revolves around the use and meaning of the term.

It does have something of the paradox of the court.

In more moderne terms, it feels like a catch 22.

So far, Ecmandu giving the expected performance but I thought that Uccisore would come out stronger. Kinda disappointing.

Of course all of this is presuming that there is such a thing as winning with either one of them.

So much time being spent on the ‘fool’ argument. :-"

Seems that Uccisore is trying to shift the definition of ‘fool’ to mean someone below the intellectual norm in every way. :-k

Here, the word ‘foolish’ is more appropriate, the argument’s concern over a fool, may yet not be a foolish endeavor. There may be a philosophical benefit to be gained, which would negate the idea of it being foolish. The conscriptive idea ‘fool’ can not be negated, where’s a descriptive one ’ Foolish ’ can.

When someone says, 'He’s a fool ’ the phrase is a presumption. A presumption has to be verified, before it can be negated. But when someone else says, 'He acts foolish '( ly); no such validation need to be done. In practical syntax. ‘He is a fool’ has to be conjoined by a -because he is such a such type of person. Because is a causally necessitated validation. In ‘He acts foolish’ because is not warranted, nor is appropriate in usage, because validation of foolishness does not meet the criteria of a necessary extrinsic evaluation. If an intrinsic, self evaluation is made, such as ‘He acts foolish’ because he wants to be perceived as such, then we go back to
bad faith, or the lie of deception.
So, if the question reduces to ‘Why does he act this way?(foolishly)’ we are no longer in the realm of necessary truth vis ; implying a objective evaluation, but to a contingent one, begging the state of mind of the foolish actor.

But we are not after states of mind, rather, meaning of foolishness. This whole casual chain is defeated by
the X unknown of why an actor, be he a fool or not, acts foolishly. Therefore , the object of inquiry is not a foolish action, BECAUSE there can not be ascertained a definite cause.

On the other hand, one can presume idiocy, on bases of patent analogy, such as , because he is mentally challenged, or he is of a very low IQ, or he has a developmental disorder, etc. But all of these have to be objectively evaluated, versus acting silly or like a moron,does not necessitate such evaluation.

Fool-
-fool in every way?
-fool in philosophy?
-fool in some/any way?

A fool in philosophy may be a fool in some way, but not necessarily, or in every way. And yet he may be a fool in every way. Any way, a fool is a fool , in some way, and yet be a fool all ways. Depends on who is interpreting, the fool or, another, (fool, or not),(philosopher or not).

Fool:

    Fool in philosophy?
    Fool in some way ?



    Fool in any way.  ?

To someone above the intellectual norm. Right?

Ecmandu is an idiot and a fool for not realizing he is an idiot.

Kropotkin