This place is weird

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Why the fuck does this place have the same group of core users for years and years and barely anything new by anybody else?

[iambiguous]

Yo, Curly! You've got a customer.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Yo, Curly! You've got a customer.

What?

[iambiguous]

Yo, Curly! You've got a customer.

What?

How to explain!

Curly is one of my Three Stooges here. He is convinced that ILP has become a pale imitation of what it once was because of trolls like me. I am the problem. Me, personally.

Stick around and he'll explain.

Now, I do believe that over the years I have been somewhat responsible for driving any number of "serious philosophers" out of any number of venues.

I explain that in what zinnat here calls one of my "groots":

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world [of moral and political value judgments] is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented. The arguments made in my signature threads.

Hope this helped.

[MagsJ]

I actually find this place refreshingly different, but.. then again, I too have always been called weird.

Welcome to the world of non-conformist individuality, perhaps? where one’s weird, is another’s normal.

[Ecmandu]

Internet forums in general have lost interest over the decades.

Now it’s about Facebook and Twitter.

I mean, fuck, half of ILP decided to ignore me because I’m a moral objectivist... what did I say that put their panties in a bunch?

Nobody wants their consent violated.

For saying this, iambiguous, Karpel, MagsJ, Peter and silhouette decided to ignore me.

My posts get better each day, but they still can’t let go that I proved objective ethics. Urwrong gets mad at me too.

Apparently, it’s not politically correct to say that all people in existence are exactly the same (objective) : none of them want their consent violated.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Internet forums in general have lost interest over the decades.

Now it’s about Facebook and Twitter.

I mean, fuck, half of ILP decided to ignore me because I’m a moral objectivist... what did I say that put their panties in a bunch?

Nobody wants their consent violated.

For saying this, iambiguous, Karpel, MagsJ, Peter and silhouette decided to ignore me.

My posts get better each day, but they still can’t let go that I proved objective ethics. Urwrong gets mad at me too.

Apparently, it’s not politically correct to say that all people in existence are exactly the same (objective) : none of them want their consent violated.

K: I refuse to engage with you for a couple of reasons... you keep changing the goalpost
so no matter how you answer, you are wrong... secondly, I object to anyone who
proclaims themselves to be "objective" because there is no such thing as "objective"
and thirdly, I object to this idea of "consent violations" because it doesn't mean a dam
thing... it is pretend nonsense...and I will not engage in nonsense, by you or anyone else....

Kropotkin

[Ecmandu]

Internet forums in general have lost interest over the decades.

Now it’s about Facebook and Twitter.

I mean, fuck, half of ILP decided to ignore me because I’m a moral objectivist... what did I say that put their panties in a bunch?

Nobody wants their consent violated.

For saying this, iambiguous, Karpel, MagsJ, Peter and silhouette decided to ignore me.

My posts get better each day, but they still can’t let go that I proved objective ethics. Urwrong gets mad at me too.

Apparently, it’s not politically correct to say that all people in existence are exactly the same (objective) : none of them want their consent violated.

K: I refuse to engage with you for a couple of reasons... you keep changing the goalpost
so no matter how you answer, you are wrong... secondly, I object to anyone who
proclaims themselves to be "objective" because there is no such thing as "objective"
and thirdly, I object to this idea of "consent violations" because it doesn't mean a dam
thing... it is pretend nonsense...and I will not engage in nonsense, by you or anyone else....

Kropotkin

I don’t change goal posts. People are such trolls that I just go with the flow. Unlike others, I don’t try to corral my threads. This makes it look like I’m changing goalposts when I’m just up for whatever the fuck random shit gets posted in my threads.

If every being possible in all of existence agrees in the same thing, it’s objective. Hate to burst your bubble here... consent violation is not a matter of opinion. It’s a fact. Nobody wants it to happen: EVER.

I don’t know what kind of cush life you’ve lived that leads you to believe consent violations are nonsense.... it’s not. You are not a man of the people peter

[Carleas]

Either Faust or Tentative used to model this place as a local pub (which as I recall was the inspiration for the banner image above). I think that's a good comparison: a group of regulars that come for what's on tap and stay for the surrogate family.

What's kept you coming back these 12 years?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Yo, Curly! You've got a customer.

What?

How to explain!

Curly is one of my Three Stooges here. He is convinced that ILP has become a pale imitation of what it once was because of trolls like me. I am the problem. Me, personally.

Stick around and he'll explain.

Now, I do believe that over the years I have been somewhat responsible for driving any number of "serious philosophers" out of any number of venues.

I explain that in what zinnat here calls one of my "groots":

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world [of moral and political value judgments] is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented. The arguments made in my signature threads.

Hope this helped.

I don't know which Stooge you call me, but if this is supposed to represent my thinking it is only partially correct. I don't think you've driven away serious philosophers. I don't remember a golden age here. But maybe one of the other Stooges is nostaligic. Or maybe I said something like this, it's just...who am I longing for. It's nice to see Von Rivers around, but I never got the impression he left because of you, for example. I figured he just got tired the then, and still now, fairly low quality philosophy. Of which I consider myself a part. I am here for reasons that are not really philosophy, but to bounce off worldviews. There are better places for more academic philosophy, if that's what you mean by serious philosophy, I've never understood this criticism. I am always free to go to the more academic ones, if that's what serious means, so I have no complaints against you based on losses to serious philosophy.

Which one of us longs for the golden age?

[MagsJ]

Yo, Curly! You've got a customer.

Lol

@WW3.. perhaps this is what real philosophy looks like, as opposed to what we’re told it is/should be like?

Do you have any recommendations for a good forum with non-weird non-conformist members? I’d like to join.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Either Faust or Tentative used to model this place as a local pub (which as I recall was the inspiration for the banner image above). I think that's a good comparison: a group of regulars that come for what's on tap and stay for the surrogate family.

What's kept you coming back these 12 years?

Ahh Cheers, where everyone knows your avatar.

To answer your question, I do not know. I think I like the font here. Also, there isn't any place quite like it.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Yo, Curly! You've got a customer.

Lol

@WW3.. perhaps this is what real philosophy looks like, as opposed to what we’re told it is/should be like?

Do you have any recommendations for a good forum with non-weird non-conformist members? I’d like to join.

Its not that the people are weird. Well some are of course. But its more less how Carleas described it, which isn't so weird when you look at it that way.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Yo, Curly! You've got a customer.

What?

How to explain!

Curly is one of my Three Stooges here. He is convinced that ILP has become a pale imitation of what it once was because of trolls like me. I am the problem. Me, personally.

Stick around and he'll explain.

Now, I do believe that over the years I have been somewhat responsible for driving any number of "serious philosophers" out of any number of venues.

I explain that in what zinnat here calls one of my "groots":

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world [of moral and political value judgments] is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented. The arguments made in my signature threads.

Hope this helped.

I'll be stealing your quote in your sig.

[iambiguous]

I'll be stealing your quote in your sig.

Consider it a gift.

[Meno_]

The only condition between a theft and a gift is the degree of conscious intention that goes into deciding which way it goes.

Otherwise its a universal condition of autonomy.

[iambiguous]

I don't know which Stooge you call me...

Come on, that strikes me as bullshit.

I don't remember a golden age here.

Right, like that expression itself isn't a subjective point of view rooted in dasein. But when I first became a member of ILP, there were considerably more folks that I would construe to be passionate about philosophy. And in whatever manner they had come to understand "the best of all possible worlds" in regard to exchanges of philosophy. That's the comparison that I make. Not between the way ILP was then and someone's description of the best of all philosophical worlds. Period. My way or the highway.

It's nice to see Von Rivers around, but I never got the impression he left because of you, for example. I figured he just got tired the then, and still now, fairly low quality philosophy. Of which I consider myself a part. I am here for reasons that are not really philosophy, but to bounce off worldviews. There are better places for more academic philosophy, if that's what you mean by serious philosophy, I've never understood this criticism. I am always free to go to the more academic ones, if that's what serious means, so I have no complaints against you based on losses to serious philosophy.

I didn't name names because I have no idea why any particular member left. All I can do is, once again, extrapolate from my own understanding of past experiences in philosophy venues going all the way back to the MSN groups 20 years ago. Von and Velvet Chainsaw, my "archenemies" in a group called [I think] Brainstorm!

And, for me, "serious philosophers" are still more or less in sync with Will Durant's assessment:

"In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company...he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him...He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist."

This too being but an intellectual contraption rooted existentially in dasein. But my own interest in philosophy revolves almost entirely around exploring flesh and blood human interactions that revolve around morality and immortality. Given particular contexts. And in exploring the gaps between what someone believes or claims to know is true "in their head" and what they are able to actually demonstrate as in fact true for all other rational human beings.

[iambiguous]

The only condition between a theft and a gift is the degree of conscious intention that goes into deciding which way it goes.

Otherwise its a universal condition of autonomy.

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that part.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Come on, that strikes me as bullshit.

I think I'm curly, but didn't you switch names around a while ago? Anyway, it's not the part of your posts I notice.

I don't remember a golden age here.

Right, like that expression itself isn't a subjective point of view rooted in dasein.

Um, I don't remember me thinking there was a Golden Age here. You wrote to WW111 as if I was mourning a better time (from my values). I don't remember feeling that way or expressing it. The Pale imitiation. You said I, yes, made a value judgment that now is worse then then. I haven't.

But when I first became a member of ILP, there were considerably more folks that I would construe to be passionate about philosophy. And in whatever manner they had come to understand "the best of all possible worlds" in regard to exchanges of philosophy. That's the comparison that I make. Not between the way ILP was then and someone's description of the best of all philosophical worlds. Period. My way or the highway.

Wait. You said I or Curly in any case, thought it was better before. Not you.

I didn't name names because I have no idea why any particular member left. All I can do is, once again, extrapolate from my own understanding of past experiences in philosophy venues going all the way back to the MSN groups 20 years ago. Von and Velvet Chainsaw, my "archenemies" in a group called [I think] Brainstorm!

And, for me, "serious philosophers" are still more or less in sync with Will Durant's assessment:

"In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company...he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him...He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist."

This too being but an intellectual contraption rooted existentially in dasein. But my own interest in philosophy revolves almost entirely around exploring flesh and blood human interactions that revolve around morality and immortality. Given particular contexts. And in exploring the gaps between what someone believes or claims to know is true "in their head" and what they are able to actually demonstrate as in fact true for all other rational human beings.

Please. Just for a moment. You said....

Curly is one of my Three Stooges here. He is convinced that ILP has become a pale imitation of what it once was because of trolls like me. I am the problem. Me, personally.

[/quote]I don't think that.
I have called you out on your behavior, but I have never said that ILP is a pale imitation of what it was. If I am Curly. Am I Curly? If I am not Curly, who did say it? IS Curly Phyllo?

Which of us said that?

Seriously, I am not biting your balls because of what pisses me off. I seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

That is not how I feel, this pale imitation thing. If it's me, please show me the post. If Curly is someone else, please show me the post.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I think you fuck up discussions, yes. I don't think there was a time that felt like a Golden Age for me. You've always been here. I have no time here before you. The apartment came furnished.

[MagsJ]

@WW3.. perhaps this is what real philosophy looks like, as opposed to what we’re told it is/should be like?

Its not that the people are weird. Well some are of course. But its more less how Carleas described it, which isn't so weird when you look at it that way.

ILP.. a bar or café to some, an opium den to others. For me, it’s an absinthe parlour.

This thread does seem to be proving your point, though.

[WendyDarling]

Biggie wrote

Come on, that strikes me as bullshit.

Is irony objective, as objective as say your "bullshit?"

Biggie, you've complained that this place is full of kids such as myself rather than real philosophers such as yourself, that was all you not KT.

[iambiguous]

Biggie wrote

Come on, that strikes me as bullshit.

Is irony objective, as objective as say your "bullshit?"

Biggie, you've complained that this place is full of kids such as myself rather than real philosophers such as yourself, that was all you not KT.

No, it's Kids. Something I just made up one day to encompass my reaction to what I construe to be minds that are not even remotely challenging. Or their "contributions" tend to consist of youtube videos. Urwrongx1000 and his rabid, declamatory liberals-are-scum-dog posts.

What, for example, I tried to convey regarding my reaction to your own rabid, declamatory "contributions" here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195978

As for the "real philosophers here -- or what I call the "serious philosophers" -- they often have very sophisticated and challenging minds. Karpel Tunnel for example. But in regard to the things that most preoccupy me from my signature threads, they almost never come down out of the clouds. The Magnus Anderson types.

Still, I'm ever and always stuck with admitting that my own posts here are little more than subjective "existential contraptions" in turn.

[iambiguous]

Yo, Wendy! You're up!!

Biggie wrote

Come on, that strikes me as bullshit.

Is irony objective, as objective as say your "bullshit?"

Biggie, you've complained that this place is full of kids such as myself rather than real philosophers such as yourself, that was all you not KT.

No, it's Kids. Something I just made up one day to encompass my reaction to what I construe to be minds that are not even remotely challenging. Or their "contributions" tend to consist of youtube videos. Urwrongx1000 and his rabid, declamatory liberals-are-scum-dog posts.

What, for example, I tried to convey regarding my reaction to your own rabid, declamatory "contributions" here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195978

As for the "real philosophers here -- or what I call the "serious philosophers" -- they often have very sophisticated and challenging minds. Karpel Tunnel for example. But in regard to the things that most preoccupy me from my signature threads, they almost never come down out of the clouds. The Magnus Anderson types.

Still, I'm ever and always stuck with admitting that my own posts here are little more than subjective "existential contraptions" in turn.

[Meno_]

....., if there is curly, there should really be the other two, mo, and Larry.

Why curly? Because he does real philosophy, or maybe reel philosophy.

The latter is a good metaphor for cutting out the least desirable , unphilosophical parts, that may not fit into a club atmosphere.

But it is what it is, and bringing things down to basics has been the aim of no less illustrative thinkers then. those positive about simplicity for it's own sake.

But that it doesn't or can't hold too much water anymore , is just a reminder that all schools of thought have to change with the times !

[iambiguous]

....., if there is curly, there should really be the other two, mo, and Larry.

Why curly? Because he does real philosophy, or maybe reel philosophy.

The latter is a good metaphor for cutting out the least desirable , unphilosophical parts, that may not fit into a club atmosphere.

But it is what it is, and bringing things down to basics has been the aim of no less illustrative thinkers then. those positive about simplicity for it's own sake.

But that it doesn't or can't hold too much water anymore , is just a reminder that all schools of thought have to change with the times !

Once again, I have no idea what point you are making here, but it does allow me to bring this thread back up to the top. And maybe this time Wendy will take the bait.