Ecmandu's No Fool

[Orbie]

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.

[James S Saint]

"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.

[Orbie]

"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.

[Carleas]

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?

It does have something of the paradox of the court.

[Orbie]

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

[phyllo]

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

[James S Saint]

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

[phyllo]

So much time being spent on the 'fool' argument.

[phyllo]

Seems that Uccisore is trying to shift the definition of 'fool' to mean someone below the intellectual norm in every way.

[Orbie]

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.

[phyllo]

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

[Orbie]

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).

[Orbie]

Seems that Uccisore is trying to shift the definition of 'fool' to mean someone below the intellectual norm in every way.

Fool:

Fool in philosophy?
Fool in some way ?



Fool in any way. ?










To someone above the intellectual norm. Right?

[Peter Kropotkin]

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

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

More on this 'fool' nonsense:

All we know about Ecmandu comes for the posts at ILP and the links to his videos. If he is a fool, then the evidence is in his posts. That's the only way to judge his foolness.

[Orbie]

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.

[Orbie]

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 .

[Ecmandu]

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.

[James S Saint]

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.

[phyllo]

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".

Uccisore wrote :
Is Ecmandu a Fool?

Here's what we know about him:
He has an 8th-grade reading comphrension level at best. *
He has no knowledge of technical terminology in philosophy, science, religion, or other fields he claims expertise in. *
He resorts to hideously bad, juvenile, or transparently misleading tactics whenever shown to be wrong about the most trivial of matters. *
He can operate a computer well enough to post on ILP.
He can create YouTube videos.

Now, what can we say about the three asterisked points above? Notably, they can be faked. Who among you hasn't read Ecmandu's words and thought "There's no way anybody could be this stupid/irrational/crazy, he must be a troll." I submit this instinct is a reasonable one. Now, maybe he's a troll and maybe he isn't, but the odds are high enough that we have to concede claims about his idiocy are inconclusive, and indeed unprovable thanks to the anonymous nature of the internet.

[phyllo]

Uccisore wrote :
Last I heard, my aunt re-reads Stephen King's "The Stand" every year or so, and she would tell you it's worthwhile to her each and every time.

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?

[phyllo]

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.

[Ecmandu]

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.

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.

[phyllo]

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.

[Ecmandu]

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.