The point of philosophy is to end philosophy

I wanted to add more to this. The reason you’re not going to be successful with your type of argument is because your brain has less life experience (your ignorant comments about suicide) and is more narcissistic.

I say narcissistic because you’d consider it “extreme” consent violation for YOU if YOU were chained up in a basement for a few decades. BUT!! It’s not an extreme consent violation for YOU that this is actually happening to OTHERS right NOW.

You are not in a position to teach in this conversation…

Ask and learn.

Consent violations are an inevitable consequence of existence for all living things
And because they are inevitable there is nothing one can do but just accept them

Consent violations occur because the Universe is in part deterministic so things will happen that are beyond our control
The only way that consent violations could not occur is where free will was absolute and no one imposed on anyone else

Some consent violations can be tempered with a reward so that the violation is not seen as being as bad as it is
Other times the consent violation may be so small or common that it is not actually seen as a consent violation

It is most definitely on a spectrum because not all bad things are equally bad because some are obviously worse than others
To say they are equally bad is like saying all crimes are equally bad and that punishment for them should therefore be equal

To me consent violation only applies to things that I am experiencing and not anyone else
If someone is chained up in a basement there is nothing I can do about that unfortunately

But you claim to be an empath and so what are you Ecmandu doing about all of those poor souls chained up in basements everywhere
Arguing with random strangers on the internet is not helping them at all but as an empath should you not be helping them right now

Their consent violation is not bothering you too much because like me you cannot see them and so cannot help them
You cannot help the whole world no matter how empathic you are as you can only help a very small number of people

These holidays are hard on all, and so I wish All a good night.

Iambiguous definitely has a problem where he had dug his own deep-shit-hole and prefer to wallow in it with his defensive ‘contraptions,’ existential, intellectual, etc.

My suggestion to you is to take the helicopter view and see from that top view without being emotional engaging in it, else, you will be caught in a ruminating cycle of being splashed with his shit and mud continually.

To end philosophy will require faith.
The purpose of philosophy is to open up philosophy-proper.

Thus philosophy-proper is eternally an open-ended quest.
Not necessary must be the right question, even the wrong questions are welcome because if one keep question one’s wrong questions and answers, one will strive towards improving one’s knowledge continuously.

One cannot blame one’s viewpoint, on another’s dilemma! ergo… we, and he. No!

Surreptitious!

  • It is not a level of determinism that causes consent violation. Existence could be totally determined and violate no ones consent.

  • The idea that you’re the only one who can violate your consent is absurd. I don’t even know why you’re arguing that.

  • If consent can be violated in any instance, it can be violated in every instance. If I see someone flash me a peace sign, I know in that instant that the whole world is seriously shitty. Minor for me? No, because, I can abstract the implications.

  • Consent violation happens for two reasons:
    1.) zero sum scenarios
    2.) negative non zero sum scenarios

What am I doing to fix it?

Two things:

1.) I’m teaching people how to construct better zero sum scenarios in this world

2.) I’m constructing positive non zero sum realities in the form of hyperdimensional mirror realities

  • you have a very narcissistic proximity problem (it’s very common) if your mother were chained in a basement and you knew it, but knew you couldn’t find her… you’d roil in agony your entire life. If it’s some child from Slovakia— you don’t give a shit. You don’t feel it at all.

Philosophy in the sense of debating and understanding arguments is indeed a useless loop, it takes a gigantic effort of power and intelligence to rise above that veil and attain power over ones mind. When this is accomplished, one is able to see through all arguments into the intention behind it, and from there on it is impossible to get stuck in the loop. Intention is not abstract.

One key to successfully battling Iambiguous would be to discern his intention. Few people have managed this on this site.

I thought the point to philosophy was to discover what is wisest to do. Perhaps the wisest thing to do is endlessly debate what is wisest to do. But that would make it a religion.

How could this conundrum be resolved without first resolving what is wisest to do? And then do it.

Isn’t every religion merely an attempt to follow what is wise (not necessarily what is true)?

I don’t believe that it is - this only became the case with Socrates, who said that it is wisest to not exist.
Christianity came as a result of this. (not of only this - but this element was required)

I would say that wisdom does not allow generalization and universalization, so that to philosophize about what in general is wisest is necessarily folly.

Religion involves no debate about what is wisest, it rather involves some debate about how to interpret some holy text which are presumed to have arisen from absolute wisdom.

Philosophy as debating about what is wisest; Socrates through Kant, is even more fruitless though.

But, wisest in what circumstance?
Wisest with respect to what kind of aim?

The farthest post Socratic philosophers got was to establish that it is wisest to have no aims at all.

At least an attempt to avoid divine punishment. I guess one could call this wise.

I thought the very word philosophy meant “the love of wisdom”.

But looking up English dictionaries today, they conflate “love of truth, knowledge, or science” with “philosophy”.

I smell a political linguistic rat in the works.

I think maters are solved when one realizes that Sophia is not a word referring to right or wrong action, nor to right and wrong in general.

Wisdom, in as far as it is a translation of Sophia, is not a judgement about what one must do, but rather a realization of what one is. If I am to put it succinctly and incompletely.
By such a realization one has, obviously turned into something different from what one was before it.

that would be the (one of the) points of language in general and not something exclusive to ‘philosophy’. you could even completely ignore the greek etymological roots of the word and you’d still be doing it. deciding what is ‘wise’, i mean. but there’s a nice ring to your phrase there because it kinda mystifies this business about ‘doing wise things’ and leads one to believe it can’t be done without at least a partial review of western philosophy. what comes next is a very subtle division of language so subtle you can’t really draw a clear line there; there is ordinary language and then highly technical philosophical language. and part of the nature of this latter kind of language is that it creates its own conceptual problems and often leads one into thinking the question they had when they originally ‘approached’ philosophy is actually much more complex then it really is. a nigga just wants to do the ‘right’ thing and next thing you know, he’s trippin on shit like ‘virtue’ and ‘principle’ and ‘imperative’ and ‘noble’. then he’s like ‘wtf!’ and he doesn’t know what to do.

think of philosophy (in general) as a kind of a priori constructed language built off morphemes that utilizes the rules of grammar and logic to function. and by doing so, it doesn’t necessarily have to be representational to make sense. that’s what gets everyone hooked; because there is syntactical and semantic cogency, they believe they are saying something about the world… while in fact they’re saying something about other words that aren’t reducible to semantic primes, for instance. this is largely the business of philosophy and why i called it an apriori constructed language. a purely representational language would already exist in the natural sciences and in Wittgenstein’s ‘use-meaning’ theory, which allows for the ambiguity of language in most circumstances.

but really ‘philosophy’ lies in a kind of limbo between ordinary language and pure nonsense, and it is the duty of the field of linguistics to investigate this netherworld and report back to us immediately with its findings.

philosophers are no longer fashionable, man. today the thing to be is a linguistic/analytical thinker. but i mean you can’t just ‘do this’. like you have to go through it (philosophy) and hope by the time your 30 or so you can get out of it with your head still intact.

lol i’m suddenly reminded of max eastman: ‘hegelism is like a mental disease; you can’t know what it is until you get it, and then you can’t know because you have got it’.

you could almost substitute ‘philosophy’ for ‘hegelism’ and you wouldn’t miss a beat.

You have a skewed view of ‘what is philosophy’ as restricted to academic philosophy which is actually a bastardized form of philosophy-proper.

The term ‘philosophy’ is well recognized all over the world, i.e. Western, Greek, Eastern, Middle Eastern and every where. Therefore to understand what is the root of ‘philosophy’ as recognized all over the world, we need to survey and research into their meanings to the people who used the term ‘philosophy’ in their respective environment.

While the term ‘philosophy’ is generally refer to ‘love of wisdom,’ I believe this is driven by an inherent faculty [of higher order or meta-order] within the brain/mind of humans just like the faculty of the intellect, logic, rationality, reason, emotions, morality and other notable function of the brain/mind.

The faculty of philosophy [in the brain] within the human psyche is the inherent overriding drive for progress and continual improvements using its relevant tools to optimize the well-being of the individual[s], groups and therefrom humanity.

yes well my hostility toward philosophy - which is relatively new and something that began only a few years ago - evolved out of a combination of several things which materialized all at once. a few of these things were a deeper understanding of Hume, Wittgenstein and Derrida, an introduction to rosa lichtenstein’s work (example: anti-dialectics.co.uk/Rest_o … Twelve.htm), and a new political perspective about the history and use of ‘philosophy’ not just as some personal intellectual inquiry into the ‘meaning of life’ any individual might engage in, but rather a systemic superstructure of concepts and ideas built around certain initiatives that are hundreds if not thousands of years old… and these ideas define what can be done in ‘philosophy’. the deck was stacked, so to speak. the axial age of philosophy didn’t just appear unconditionally; social, material and economic circumstances were already set, around which these new ideas would be formed. hence, those who developed philosophy were already biased and, whether consciously or not, did not ask questions with honest disinterest. plato and aristotle are glaring examples of philosophers who interpreted the world in a way that was suitable for justifying already existing political power structures… therefore their ideas are for the purpose of defending and rationalizing those structures.

as you can see i have a very strong penchant for marxist, analytical an post-structural approaches to modern philosophy as it is still practiced. most of it is built off of axioms that are fundamentally unprovable assumptions. this is why i conveniently called it an a priori constructed language earlier. but not just random assumptions, as it were, but assumptions made by philosophers who were already trying to lay a groundwork for defending their own status-quo (at the time). in fact, there’s only one ‘rationalist’ in continental philosophy that i wouldn’t ‘call out’ for bullshit, and that’s Spinoza.

but sure, folks still do ‘philosophy’ when they ask the usual questions - what’s meaning and purpose and right, etc., etc. it’s only when they become acquainted with and fall under the spell of philosophers who were neither empiricists or nihilists, that they become enchanted by so much quotidian gobbledygook.

Prometheans got something of a point, at least he is right where it concerns the trash he has read, all that is completely pointless.

Evidence of the lack of need for philosophy for a society is Rome. They just killed everyone else and took their stuff, and had no philosophers except Seneca, whose philosophy is basically that one doesn’t need to make things more complicated than they are.

However , without the presumption of philosophy , the hypothetical foundation of science would not have developed.

There would not be an end to philosophy if there was no beginning.

Lets say if the biblical interpretation of genesis were to hold true, then the interval between beginnings.and endings would gain no.meaning, through the process of and that would be a sine quo non of life.

Without that process, the markers of which would signify the development , consciousness Itself would not have developed.

So , philosophy is the signification of the process of Life It’s Self.

This was Presocratic philosophy, Socrates took philosophy into the ego for it to wither away and become a trivial non-thing.
Francis Bacon turns out to agree with me on that, he, the founder of scientific method, called Plato and Aristotle empty rhetoricians basically, but owed much debt to those who came before.

prom wrote

Nihilistic philosophers are a good thing?

Mmhm. We wish to precipitate a profound crisis by exposing all cherished beliefs and sacrosanct truths as symptoms of a defective Western mythos (I totally stole that. Sounded so good I had to use it).

“Nihilism is not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one’s shoulder to the plough; one destroys” - N

And we ain’t the passive Eastern or french existential nihilists, either. Those are the ones who think everything should perish. We’re more like the German or Russian kind. When destruction becomes a creative act, like your boy bakunin once said.