On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers contex

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 6:01 pm

Ecmandu wrote:I’m integrated. I think with my emotions and I emote with my thinking. Wouldn’t have it any other way.


That is what all people that think with their emotions think.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8794
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 27, 2020 6:08 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I’m integrated. I think with my emotions and I emote with my thinking. Wouldn’t have it any other way.


That is what all people that think with their emotions think.


And some of us are more honest than others.

That’s the difference between your average person and an emotional ‘genius’, brutal honestly. That’s what sets people apart.

I see all types who think they are brutally honest with themselves and others, but you see them and realize they’ve barely begun the voyage.

Being honest is always brutal on oneself. That’s how we grow though. I hated almost every moment of myself and others to arrive at where I am now...

With so much struggle under my belt, I’ve become much more placid than I was before... emotional regulation that obeys my logic.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11459
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 6:25 pm

Ecmandu wrote:And some of us are more honest than others.


That's true.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8794
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby MagsJ » Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:34 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Peter Kropotkin wrote:
MagsJ wrote: “Is he saying he wants to get ‘busy’ with your wife, Peter? or that others should too, because exclusivity.. in his mind, is immoral”.

What a stupid thing to be inferring.
:lol:

K: I must agree with you..... what exactly is he saying?
Of course you agree with her, both of you are psychopaths...

I answered the question right here.

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8#p2779238
K: what the fuck?

Wtf indeed! He keeps saying that he’s hyper-sexual.. maybe that’s what makes him think the way he does.

Though it seems to me, that he says whatever enters his head.. pot calling the kettle black, in regard to being constantly contradicting the self.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21571
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:25 pm

MagsJ ... !!!

You reply is laughable.

“WTF indeed”

You do realize that exclusionary ventures are the realm of psychopaths, correct? Marriage is so exclusionary that it’s a 2 person vs. 8 billion win loss scenario, right? Perfect logic. You? Abysmal logic. Peter? Abysmal logic.

But let’s continue...

“He keeps saying he’s hyper sexual. Maybe that’s why he thinks the way he does”

Really? In the sexual world life is a fucking mess... people (men and women) fucking each other constantly regardless of what they (lol) fucking VOW!!

“He says whatever comes to his head”

Who the fuck doesn’t ?!?!

Those are the ONLY things that we CAN say.

Again, I reiterate...

Philosophers don’t have sex and they don’t marry.

You and Peter are not philosophers
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11459
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Meno_ » Wed Oct 28, 2020 12:12 am

We pretty much established that philosophers are not the marriageable types. So if still single then you are the philosopher type. , You think, therefore You are.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8107
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby MagsJ » Wed Oct 28, 2020 12:33 am

Meno_ wrote:We pretty much established that philosophers are not the marriageable types. So if still single then you are the philosopher type. , You think, therefore You are.

A response based in reason, not emotion.. thanks Meno_

I’m thinking, therefore I am(ing) :D
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21571
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 28, 2020 12:51 am

Meno_ wrote:We pretty much established that philosophers are not the marriageable types. So if still single then you are the philosopher type. , You think, therefore You are.

Isn't that like one of those, "Apples are red so if it is red, it must be an apple"?

To which Sil would respond, "You said apples are red, right? That is what you said, right? Apples are red? I don't see any proof of that. I can't gauge whether I agree until you prove that apples are red. You must have just pulled that out of your ass. This is a philosophy board. Why should I express an opinion if you haven't proven your assertion..." and on - and on - and on.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby MagsJ » Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:58 am

obsrvr524 wrote:..so if it is red, it must be an apple"?

..if what is red? a chair? a room? a dress?

If they ^^^ are all red, does that make them all apples?

_
I think the Philosophical, needs a Philosophical, to keep them on an even keel, in being able to understand the Other.

Anything less, would end in annoyance and probably despair.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21571
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:03 am

MagsJ wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:..so if it is red, it must be an apple"?

..if what is red? a chair? a room? a dress?

That's up to you. It isn't my job to defend your reasoning. My two cents isn't worth anything.

MagsJ wrote:If they ^^^ are all red, does that make them all apples?

"If they are all red, does that make them all apples". Is that what you said? I just want to be clear. How do you know they are all red? Where did you get that?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby MagsJ » Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:25 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:..so if it is red, it must be an apple"?
..if what is red? a chair? a room? a dress?
That's up to you. It isn't my job to defend your reasoning.

I didn’t ask or expect you to.. my reasoning is, that only an apple can be an apple.. red or otherwise. ‘If it is red’ is too ambiguous.

MagsJ wrote:If they ^^^ are all red, does that make them all apples?
"If they are all red, does that make them all apples". Is that what you said? I just want to be clear. How do you know they are all red? Where did you get that?

Lol.. you know what I said.. does it need repeating?

You left ‘they’ undefined.. how do I know if it was an apple.. or a chair, or a room, or a dress? so alluding, that anything red is an apple, and an apple is anything red.. seems like circular reasoning to me.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21571
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:41 am

MagsJ wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:That's up to you. It isn't my job to defend your reasoning.

I didn’t ask or expect you to.. my reasoning is, that only an apple can be an apple.. red or otherwise. ‘If it is red’ is too ambiguous.


Note to others: Only a moral objectivist would say such a thing.

MagsJ wrote:
MagsJ wrote:If they ^^^ are all red, does that make them all apples?
"If they are all red, does that make them all apples". Is that what you said? I just want to be clear. How do you know they are all red? Where did you get that?

Lol.. you know what I said.. does it need repeating?

You left ‘they’ undefined.. how do I know if it was an apple.. or a chair, or a room, or a dress? so alluding, that anything red is an apple, and an apple is anything red.. seems like circular reasoning to me.

Well you are the one who said it. I am just trying to understand your confused and obviously flawed reasoning.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby MagsJ » Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:58 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:That's up to you. It isn't my job to defend your reasoning.
I didn’t ask or expect you to.. my reasoning is, that only an apple can be an apple.. red or otherwise. ‘If it is red’ is too ambiguous.
Note to others: Only a moral objectivist would say such a thing.

Yes.. that’s because it’s true.

MagsJ wrote:
"If they are all red, does that make them all apples". Is that what you said? I just want to be clear. How do you know they are all red? Where did you get that?
Lol.. you know what I said.. does it need repeating?

You left ‘they’ undefined.. how do I know if it was an apple.. or a chair, or a room, or a dress? so alluding, that anything red is an apple, and an apple is anything red.. seems like circular reasoning to me.
Well you are the one who said it. I am just trying to understand your confused and obviously flawed reasoning.

..and you are the one who left ‘they’ undefined, and therefore created a fallacy, but are not admitting that ‘they’ could be anything.. apples or otherwise, ergo ambiguity.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21571
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby MagsJ » Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:06 am

_
We are now wildly off-topic.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21571
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:14 am

MagsJ wrote:Yes.. that’s because it’s true.

The bizarre spectacle of a "philosophy of life" dedicated to the individual...but in which each and every individual Objectivist dared not to suggest that she was ever wrong.

MagsJ wrote:..and you are the one who left ‘they’ undefined, and therefore created a fallacy, but are not admitting that ‘they’ could be anything.. apples or otherwise, ergo ambiguity.

You seem to be expecting your philosophical opponents to make things easy for you, in expecting them to give you a lead or show their hand, and when they don’t.. you balk.

MagsJ wrote:We are now wildly off-topic.

Flips are florps, MagsJ.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby MagsJ » Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:54 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Yes.. that’s because it’s true.
The bizarre spectacle of a "philosophy of life" dedicated to the individual...but in which each and every individual Objectivist dared not to suggest that she was ever wrong.

Well one doesn’t, or tries not to, put forward an argument that is wrong.. if any fallacies are pointed out, they need resolving before continuing on, otherwise the entire discussion is based on.. shall we say, ‘nonsense’.

MagsJ wrote:..and you are the one who left ‘they’ undefined, and therefore created a fallacy, but are not admitting that ‘they’ could be anything.. apples or otherwise, ergo ambiguity.
You seem to be expecting your philosophical opponents to make things easy for you, in expecting them to give you a lead or show their hand, and when they don’t.. you balk.

Well lololol.. I’m doing the total opposite of that, but it seems that you’d rather play/toy with me, than clear up/resolve a simple fallacy.. but you seem to prefer this tangent/this path. You must be very, very bored.

MagsJ wrote:We are now wildly off-topic.
Flips are florps, MagsJ.

I haven’t changed my position in our exchange, so no ‘florping’ from me, and you aren’t resolving the fallacy issue, so you will continue to have an unsound position until you do. Do you plan to? lol
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21571
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:59 am

MagsJ wrote:it seems that you’d rather play/toy with me

HEY!! Don't dis ME. :o

Prattling nonsensical disagreement seems to be the standard around here.

I am just trying to fit in. 8-[

"New tact".

Think he will ever get married? I don't need to worry about it. :D
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby MagsJ » Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:09 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
MagsJ wrote:it seems that you’d rather play/toy with me
HEY!! Don't dis ME. :o

Prattling nonsensical disagreement seems to be the standard around here.

I am just trying to fit in. 8-[

"New tact".

Think he will ever get married? I don't need to worry about it. :D

That was so good a caricature, that anyone would think you were Silhouette ; )

If somebody wants him.. yes, if not.. then no.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21571
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:21 am

Maybe iambiguous?
Ecmandu seems to need a mate?

Do likes really attract?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby MagsJ » Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:45 am

obsrvr524 wrote:Do likes really attract?

Commonalities bind, I’d say.. a few differences can add dynamism, I’d presume.. but worlds apart, would probably always be worlds apart.

I’m no relationship expert, so that’s all I’ve got! :P
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21571
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 28, 2020 12:31 pm

I read someone saying "same soul, opposite pole" - probably James long long ago.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby MagsJ » Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:23 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:I read someone saying "same soul, opposite pole" - probably James long long ago.

Related bloodlines from millennia ago, is probably why. Probably why they can ‘relate’ well. :P lol

Ancient peoples, diversifying over time, into other peoples, as they ventured on to newer pastures and climes.. and the rest is history. lol
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21571
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby MagsJ » Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:58 pm

_
Or do you mean different personality types? as in opposite personality traits..
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21571
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:10 pm

MagsJ wrote:_
Or do you mean different personality types? as in opposite personality traits..

I think an actual marriage requires soul mates. I am certain of that. To the degree that the soul determines the character type, the two characters must be one. But the soul does not control everything. Their opinions on many matters, even important matters can be different. Many of their tastes can be different. And in the long run, I think that each must be missing something within themselves that the other fills (being opposite in that regard). That was definitely a James paraphrase from I don't remember where.

I'm sure in business it would be the same each partner must contribute something the other doesn't have.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:35 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Maybe iambiguous?
Ecmandu seems to need a mate?

Do likes really attract?


I don’t even want a mate in a zero sum reality. To me that’s one of the worst possible crimes in existence.

But I would like a mate without it being such a vast spiritual crime; which is why I work so hard and am so firm and insistent that we get together and do positive non zero sum hyperdimensional realities attached to our individual desire matrices.

Friends are great though. People sharing each other. Friends are also how you get things done (namely the above).

Even though I do really well alone these days, it’s not doing anyone any favors and vice versa.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11459
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users