How has Magnus Anderson convinced you otherwise?

Anytime Magnus Anderson manages to change anyone’s viewpoint on anything, I want that person to come here and post about it, what in particular made them change their mind.

My suspicion is Magnus is having absolutely zero impact other than showing merely having a stick up one’s ass isn’t enough to make a philosopher. I may be wrong, this is a place to document and chart the nature of his influence on this forum, by those who are convinced by him.

He reminds me a bit of Cezar, except he is even more pissed at the world, dumber, yet speaks better English. Rest is the same. I’m looking forward to people convincing me otherwise.

He has changed my viewpoint on him as a registered member. He was a philosopher who became a basement, dwelling troll who is proud and resourceful.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twqM56f_cVo[/youtube]

Notice his mother’s basement, his living quarters, which he rents out to budding artists so his mother will keep his internet access in working order.

He’s like the kid who transferred from a shitty university and is now in your class. And everyone is talking about Lewis and Hintikka and Kripke and he keeps trying to bring it all back to Nietzsche.

He always starts with some ridiculous declaration constructed out of ill defined concepts like, “this is noble or that is ignoble”. Then he does a little syllogism and boom, he thinks his job is done. He really isn’t very smart. A fact which is evidenced by his high level of frustration.

Imagine, not understanding the world, but wanting it to be different, and not realizing that it’s yourself who has to change because the world doesn’t. Think about how much that would suck. I kind of feel sorry for him sometimes.

He has changed my viewpoint on one occasion. I was
using a wrong definition. And he corrected the error

You use the wrong definitions alot, still can’t figure out straight and gay. I could see Magnus adjusting you here.

+1 for Magnus.

I understand what straight and gay mean but this was not what he
corrected me on but some thing else which I no longer remember

No, I saw you like, half a hour ago fail elsewhere on the site, you said gays were actually straight. I don’t think you do know. Magnus Anderson is the sort of guy who can answer 7 out if 10 kindergarten questions accurately. If you challenge him to put the matching shapes into the shape box, you can rest assured within minutes, most of the shapes will make it into the box. He is a generally reliable responder for the very, very simple stuff, as long as it doesn’t involve reading or much thinking. Only then does he gets flustered and confused, and everything comes out sounding absurdly angry, cause he is flustered and stressed by the complexity of the data.

What you mean is that he has his rants down pat and can recite them like he’s been practicing them for years, but that he still isn’t that smart.

Like I can play the guitar, there’s a lot of things that I can play really well. I’ve been doing it since I was 13. So if you just walked in while I was playing, you’d be like, “damn, this Mr Reasonable fellow is quite the skilled musician”. But I’m not, I just memorized a bunch of stuff over the years and I have some relatively good technique, but I’m not creative with it nor am I technically sound enough to teach anyone any kind of lessons.

Guy needs to work on his 360 spin, has a delay right before the end. Is that one of Magnus’s “budding artists”?

I thought not changing the world, and instead, regulating his own instincts was his ontology.

Ontology is the study of the nature of existence. My statement that people should change in relation to the world instead of demanding that the world should change in relation to them has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of existence. If anything, it has to do with psychology, with the manner in which minds handle stimulation.

Psychology is part of our existence, it is our mind, which is existence itself. Thus examining psychology has to do with the nature of existence

Frustration and resignation are two sides of the same coin. Both are bad. Fustration, because it indicates that one is applying too much force, and resignation, because it indicates one is applying too little force.

The good option is the one in between the two: applying just the right amount of force to your actions, meaning, not too much and not too little.

People who are incapable of such moderation, of such interpolation, only see two options, the extremes of frustration and resignation.

They are hedonists whose judgment is reduced to binary choice between frustration and resignation, or in plain terms, between pleasure and pain.

If these were the only choices you had, which one would you choose? Pleasure/resignation, of course.

And if you came across people who didn’t choose the same option that you did, what would you think of them? You would think they are frustrated.

Why? Because that’s the range of your experience. You cannot see beyond that. You can only imagine crude movements of frustration and resignation. You cannot imagine, because you cannot perform, subtle, refined, barely visible, micro-movements.

But from my point of view, and I believe from the point of view of every individual whose judgment is beyond pleasure and pain, the ones who frustrate themselves are considered more noble than the ones who resign, for the simple reason that they keep struggling.

No, not a damn single subject or thing.

I was going to pity him for living in his mother’s basement but gradually as he became more of a smug asshole in my encounters with him he doesn’t even get that. Nope, zero shits or fucks given concerning the online persona of Magnus Anderson.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

I can agree with this but I don’t necessarily see them as “bad” but only natural to how someone is applying one’s self. If we can experience our frustration and resignation in the moment and “see” them, we can learn from them. But I can understand your use of the word “bad” here - for many, they would be a negative too.

Yes, the middle way is always more positive and leads to balance. Also, I don’t think that it is just about the “right amount of force” but is also about applying a different tactic, a different mode.
The right amount of force might be trying to be more mindful and staying in the zone, so to speak.
Otherwise, we will give up too easily not knowing that we might have accomplished what we wanted.

I do see why you are calling them hedonists (there is pleasure seeking there) but might better words be “pessimists” and “futilists”? The former might be seen as a perfectionist.
The hedonist does look for gratification in the here and now ~~ is not capable of postponing it in the name of something to be accomplished in the future through pain and struggle.

No, I’d go in search of a third option. There is always something else, like remaining true to your vision and possibilities. That dampens frustration and resignation which are part of tunnel vision.

I would think that they just see and experience differently than myself. But yes, I might think that they are people who remain frustrated within because they have given up too easily and didn’t rise to the occasion. Negative patterns grow out of things like this when people do not have the sticktoitiveness to rise above their
need for instant gratification.

Hmmm but for me that might just depend on what they are struggling for but I figure you’re speaking of something worthy and of value. Those who frustrate themselves may not be valuing their selves and seeing things in a “real” way.
I also see what you mean by “noble”.

I think that the “imagining” must come before the performance of subtle…et cetera. We have to begin to see with different eyes through our imaginations before we can begin to do things differently and before we can choose to “hang in there” and do the subtle “teeter totter” thing of balancing the pleasure of the moment with the delayed anticipation of one’s achievement, no matter what it is.

It’s all a process and it takes confidence from remembering past experiences of achieving and what that took and what needed to be let go of in the process.

uuroanoke.org/sermon/071216WhyCurse.htm