Ecmandu's No Fool

The most general attribute of a fool is the charge, that he has no sense. Therefore, As You say, Phyllo, that enough of this non-sense,whereas You may be undermining the argument’s assignment, because the forum is trying to justify the point at which sense and
sensibility can overlap. I think minimizing it, takes the wind out of the superior intelligent sphere, where You indicated the definition is veering off of.Whereas, lower levels of intelligence are the substance of the arguments’ concern with definitions of foolishness.
Why not have superior and idiotic positions held regarding philosophy, when, the literature of the
absurd points toward it?
The accepted idea, that art precedes dialogue and common sense, and is justification for the idea ,that Nietzche is a superior philosopher, on basis of his
aphoristically styled philosophical insights? That gives credence to the absurd to creep into the arts, and either way, giving ground to the idea that this analysis still rests in neutral territory. Since, even if this can not be established, the neutrality of ideas and artistic underpinnings can bring about a

difficult balancing act, between them. Sometimes neutrality is preferred, whendirect engagement
creates counter productive effects in any way. I am reading this confrontation backward, and arrive at a neutrality for the sake of the higher goals for which
philosophy was meant to stand for.

The minimization of an understanding of seeking a higher ground, even within the idea of idiot savant, may not negate the complex syntactical usage of the meaning of.idiocy. This would reduce the grey area of the task of restricting meaning within general or specific use,many create perhaps a neutrality, which would be preferable, toward the broader goals of philosophical relevance .

Well… the debate is over. Hope you weren’t all disappointed. I think we covered some fascinating philosophical ground here, including paradoxes. Now it’s just time for the judging.

A) Ecmandu is a fool for accepting a bet wherein he has nothing to gain, only lose (not to mention the nature of this particular debate).

B) It is pretty easy to determine that even though Ecmandu has contributed something to the philosophical discussions, nothing he contributed was actual “worthwhile”.

He demonstrated both of those traits during the debate itself.

Okay, let’s look at some of this.

In his first post, Uccisore concedes that Ecmandu is(acts) stupid, inept and has mental issues. He attributes it to a conscious act of deception and trolling by Ecmandu.
Is that really reasonable? It seems much more likely that this is Ecmandu’s actual character. Uccisore admits that “claims about his idiocy are inconclusive”.

There is a distinct difference between Uccisore’s aunt finding Stephen King worthwhile and the idea that Stephen King contributed something worthwhile to literature.
Many people find the Kardashians worthwhile but do the Kardashians make worthwhile contribution to culture?

What is a worthwhile contribution to a subject? Let’s use mathematics as an example.

Stating that 2+2=4 may be worthwhile to some individual but it adds nothing to mathematics.

Making an erroneous statement like 2+2=5, adds nothing to mathematics.

Babbling incoherently while using numbers, as is a common practice among the numerologists on this site, adds nothing to mathematics.

Babble, wrong statements and repetition of existing truths cannot be seen as worthwhile contributions.

I wouldn’t go that direction James. I am a fool because everyone is a fool in some way, while at the same time having specializations. My specialization is defeating Uccisore in debates, but that doesn’t make me not a fool. I am a polymath, but I am still a fool. But I knew enough to know that I could wreak as much humiliation on Uccisore as possible, by letting him hold all the cards and still winning the debate. That doesn’t mean I contributed anything worthwhile to philosophy in the grand scheme, it just means I’m a better logitician and philosopher than Uccisore, a better debater. So I decided to use my skill to humiliate him in the way that he has repeatedly tried to humiliate me and other posters on this board… I let him choose all the perameters of the debate, so he could hold all the cards, because I knew he needed a VERY SERIOUS handicap… and i debated what i debated. I saw your point phyllo, but decided not to pursue it, because I had a larger trap set for Uccisore.

Dude, you made a few reasonable points but you did not effectively counter Uccisore’s points. Your debating skills are poor. I think that you clearly failed to articulate and support your position.

On the other hand, Uccisore unnecessarily conceded some critical points and he was not able to show that you made a worthwhile contribution to the field of philosophy. I think that he should have pursued your reformulation of the Golden Rule. That is just convoluted and obscure enough to qualify as a worthwhile contribution.

Uccisores point were that someone could not be a fool and someone could contribute worthwhile to philosophy. I refuted those points. He chose not to pursue it any further, but if he had, I would have demolished him to the point of saying the debate couldn’t even be judged. And it would have to be a draw. I calculated all this before Uccisore chose his debate. I can be a better philosopher than him and make no contributions to philosophy as a whole. And I can prove it.

 Yeah, showing that he made a worthwhile contribution to philosophy was the harder of the two sides to demonstrate by far, since in all the ways that he imagines he's contributed something, he pretty clearly hasn't.  I wanted to be sincere- I didn't want to take some point of his I thought was bullshit, like his weird golden rule formulation, and merely pretend it was worthwhile. The idea that somebody can contribute to a field through bad-example seems legit to me, and since Ec is pretty much the paradigmatic case of a bad philosopher, I went with it.  There's a lot of points I could have made but I played conservative- since Ecmandu ignored the majority of my points, the better strategy seemed to reiterate them than to make even more points.  I'd rather have one solid argument that never gets refuted than make a different argument every day, and open up the possibility that one has a vulnerability.  Are there flaws in the arguments I made? Sure.  I can think of a pretty crucial flaw in one of them in particular, but Ec didn't point any of them out, so in the context of the debate it's irrelevant. 

The ironic thing about the debate is that Ec could have won very easily.  He seems to think I was unfair to him.  In fact,  I gave him the side in the debate that [i]everybody but him already agreed with.[/i] All he had to do was be honest for once in his life, and say "Look at my behavior guys. Look at all the mistakes I've made, look at all the nonsense I've spewed. Look at all the times I've had to be corrected on the most basic of things," and I would have conceded that he had the stronger case. But when instead of being honest he went the "I'm a fool in the sense everybody is, I've contributed nothing in the sense that nobody has," route, I knew that his admission of being a worthless fool (while nonetheless appreciated) would not ultimately satisfy me. 

So things went I in a direction I like- the two sides of the debate are EITHER ecmandu is a worthless fool without any original ideas as he says, or else he merely [i]appears[/i] to be a fool and that appearence is the only way he meaningfully contributes to philosophy, as I say.  I suspect I probably won the debate, but...honestly this is a choice between two outcomes I endorse.

You’re right that I didn’t show he’s made a worthwhile contribution to the field of philosophy, if by ‘field’ you mean ‘body of knowledge’. My argument was that his contribution was to the practice of philosophy. I think the debate subject implies both are at stake, but that may have been an angle Ec could have approached my argument from (but didn’t).

That wasn’t the condition of the debate Uccisore… if I argued I was a fool in the sense you elaborated, I would have been banned. I was given a debate where if I won or lost i would be banned, so you held all the cards. Remember this, if I’m saved.

Where in the world did you get the idea that you would be banned if you admitted you were a fool? It was actually the only way for you to win and save yourself. Lots of people here seem like fools, and they don’t get banned. Lots of people here no doubt think I’m a fool, and I’m the longest running admin the place has ever had (as far as I know).

I thought that was odd from the start, but of course I’m not going to help you when you’re my debate opponent so I just let you keep thinking it.

Obviously, the paradox went over your head, but not mine. If I argued I was a fool, I didn’t deserve to be on these boards because I lost the debate, and if I argued I had anything worthwhile to contribute to philosophy I would be banned for losing the debate… notice how everyone else said it was a paradox. I thought you chose this paradox intentionally, apparently, you’re pleading dumb on this one. But I had to outsmart this paradox. That’s where i stood in the debate, and that’s why you held all the cards, and I’m sure everyone in the discussions forums knows this.

If you argued you were a fool, you would have won the debate, not lost.  You deserving to be here has nothing to do with anything. If people got banned based on whether or not I think they deserve to be here, it would be a much quieter place I assure you.

Actually that’s not true Uccisore… the conditions were “if I lost the debate I’d be banned” Calling myself a moron and not worthy of posting here is LOSING THE DEBATE… that’s bannable, because I’d be admitting I was a hopeless troll and will continue to be so. If I win the debate, I prove I have something worthwhile to contribute to philosophy and still get banned. EVERYONE in the discussions forums knew this Uccisore. I PM’ed some of them, and even Carleas HIMSELF said it was a paradox. I had to be a billion times smarter than you to win this debate. That was your handicap, and whether you realized it or not, were intelligent enough or not to realize that was my ACTUAL handicap, it was my ACTUAL handicap, and all the people in discussion know it too. So you can play dumb or not. Either way, I had to outdebate you on a level so much higher than you can possibly muster that it’s absurd.

Huh. Wow, your mind is twisted up like a pretzel. Oh well, we’ll see how things go.

Read the thread for discussions Uccisore… Carleas himself called it a paradox. Read it and weep. The amount of intelligence it took to outdebate you is not a level of intelligence you possess Uccisore. And I could do it by even calling myself a fool who had nothing to contribute worthwhile to philosophy. If the paradox went over your head, it just demonstrates that EVERYONE in the discussion forums is a better philosopher than you… and without contradiction, they can all be fools.

Worst debate ever

Kropotkin

Care to elaborate?