Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

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

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Mon Apr 11, 2016 8:12 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:We'll now talk about absolutism and relativism. These are important for the topic, because as we shall see, egoists are necessarily relativists.

Absolutism is a position that every question has a single answer. The idea is that there is a single, absolute, reference point. Relativism, on the other hand, is a position that every question has a number of equally valid answers. The idea is that there is a multiplicity of equally valid reference points.

Relativism is a primitive position, characteristic of people with underdeveloped intellect. It's typical of nomadic people -- of barbarians -- who live in the wild and have little time to spend on actual thinking (which is always concerned with discovering one true answer to any given question.) With such people, only practical questions of survival are considered to have absolute answers. Everything else is relative, since they were never given a choice. Instead, all other decisions were naturally selected. Philosophical questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" as well as questions of morality and aesthetics were always decided not through thought, but through natural selection.

K: Actually if you studied history or philosophy, you would know that the opposite is true.
Absolutism is a primitive position and relativism is an advance position.
if you had studied say, Greek philosophy, you would see that the absolute is an
early position of the Greeks philosophers and the later position, the sophist for example,
was about relativism. the battle between the absolutist and the relativist was centered
on Plato, who was the absolutist and Aristotle who was the relativist. The only position for
the early people was the absolutist position and was usually centered on God and any position
based on god is an absolutist position.

M: Philosophical questions were too much of a risk for nomads. Whoever attempted to answer ended up either being punished until he stopped "being lazy", or he simply went extinct. As such, nomads were hardcore traditionalists who relied on tradition -- a naturally selected set of decisions -- that proved effective.
Then came agricultural age of settled lifestyle which for the first time in human history allowed people to question the premises upon which their lifestyles were built upon. This is when Cronus castrated his father Uranus and replaced traditionalism with anti-traditionalism. The Golden Age ensued.


K: any society based on tradition is based on absolutism.

M: The moment one is allowed to choose one's meaning of life is the moment traditionalism dies, because traditionalism has never been a choice, but a necessity.
In this way, absolutism came to replace relativism.

K: the other way around, relativism replaced absolutism.

M: Absolutism is the height of human development.

K: History says otherwise.

M: Fast foward to modern times, and the Golden Age of Absolutism has deteroriated to an age of two modern forms of relativism: that of liberalism and that of conservativism.
This is the time when absolutism -- which means choice -- came to be hated with a burning passion. Choice, for many, has become a burden. It has become too much of a risk. Unfortunately, since most modern people have it well devepoled, this created a problem of denying it: it was too difficult to deny it.
Willpower was simply not enough. It was too slow and painful. Instead, what resulted is a denial through rationalization. People had to deceive themselves in order to become resistant to external stimulation taht triggers their choice-making process. This necessarily resulted in all sorts of barbarisms. People became bullies. They started spending a lot of their time proving other people to be wrong through deception and lies.

K: this part is simply mental masturbation.

M: Modern relativism is a sophistry meant to put an end to choice. Every intellectual knows this. Every intellectual knows that a belief in relativism is a sign of insecurity. Of inability to choose, and moreover, of inability to deny choice through willpower alone.

K: Actually, intellectuals bounced between relativism and absolutionism. the intellectuals
that are the most secure are the ones who can live with relativism but not all intellectuals can
do that.

M: Absolutists know very well that no choice is perfect choice and that further intellectual exploration can further improve choice. Absolutists also know that in order to be able to act they have to put an end to choice-making process past a certain point, and they know very well that it is willpower, and not rationalization, that should be used for such a finalization.
The two popular directions of political relativism known today are that of liberalism and that of conservatism. These two political positions define, in rough terms, how one should live one's life (in other words, they try to give an answer to the question of "what is the meaning of life?")
These terms are relativistic, which means, the correct answer depends on the chosen reference point. Furthermore, reference points are thought to be of equal value, not subject to choice themselves.

M: Liberalism, as its term suggests, is relative to one's free -- which means arbitrary -- choice of how to live one's life. One is free to choose any set of motivations one wants. There are no restrictions. One can stick with them, or one can change them at any later point in time. Also, one can pass them on to his descendants or not. These are, we can call, relaxed traditions which are most often micro-traditions as they tend to be temporary, liable to change, and rarely passed down through generations, and so, not exactly traditions in the true sense of the word.

K: When you throw in words like arbitrary in terms of one's freedom, you are sounding incredible
confused.

M: Conservatism, as its term suggests, is relative to one's ethnic background. Conservatism gives a false sense of absolutism, in that, people are ranked based on how in tune their choices are with their ethnic background. This is traditionalism proper. One's meaning of life, so to speak, is supposed to be shared not only among generations but also among anyone with the same ethnic background. Its relativism betrays itself in the idea that different peoples should preserve different traditions, which implies that different peoples should develop in different directions, as there is no single universal direction that is superior to all other directions (implying lack of this kind of choice on the part of conservatists.)

K: this is so confused I can't even answer it.

M: There are people who do not like ethnocentrism, or at least, who do not like all the varieties of conservativism that we have today, so instead of talking about the need to be in tune with one's ethnic background, they talk about the need to be in tune with one's nature/past. This too is relativism, though they will try hard to prove you that it is not, and that by telling you that they actually do make some of the choices, which of course, misses the point. Everyone makes some kinds of choices, the question is, did they choose, and do they choose, the meaning of life through a rigorous process of thinking, or did they simply submit to a naturally selected choice (what we call instincts)?
And the answer is: they simply submitted to a naturally selected choice. Hence, they are inferior.
Instead of admitting they are inferior, they will try to silence every suggestion of them being inferior. They will try to silence the fact that they LACK choice in these very important philosophical matters.
This is the modern hatred of philosophical choice of "how to live one's life the best way?"

K: this is such a confused mess, it would take me a week to clear out the rubble and
I don't have that kind of time.

M: Something interesting. They call us Cultural Marxists. This is not a real term. It's made up. And it merely shows they have no clue what they are talking about. But we have a term which is very appropriate for them. This term is Cultural Narcissism. They are Cultural Narcissists.


K: Cultural Marxist? really? Cultural Narcissists? You are young and it shows. Most of what you
wrote is nothing more than an attempt to show how smart you are, mental masturbation, I like
to call it. Instead of spewing words like they mean something, rethink your position. Take the time
to reevaluate where you stand, because you are seriously wrong about some stuff and
just confused about the rest.

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8313
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Harbal » Mon Apr 11, 2016 8:39 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote:K: Cultural Marxist? really? Cultural Narcissists? You are young and it shows. Most of what you
wrote is nothing more than an attempt to show how smart you are, mental masturbation, I like
to call it. Instead of spewing words like they mean something, rethink your position. Take the time
to reevaluate where you stand, because you are seriously wrong about some stuff and
just confused about the rest.
Are you sure it's wise to say this to him? If he feels his assumed fantasy game hero persona is being undermined there's no telling what he might do.
User avatar
Harbal
Thinker
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 12:53 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:14 pm

@Kropotkin

Sure, I might be wrong and I might be confused, but what you're doing right now is called being rude, and being rude is one of the symptoms of egoism.

Traditionalism is indeed absolutist, but only in the shallow sense of the word. Its absolutism is confined to the belief that there is a standard of evaluation that must be adopted by everyone sharing the same cultural identity.

On closer inspection, however, it's easy to realize that traditionalists are not absolutists, but merely relativists who pretend to be absolutists.

Ethnocentrism is invented in order to avoid absolutism. Fundamentally, it's no different from multiculturalism.

Ethnocentrism develops in a group of people each one of whom does not want to be judged by objective standards, instead preferring to believe that each one of them is superior to everyone else -- everyone outside of their group -- simply because they belong to the same ethnic group. What absolutes they end up inventing merely serves to maintain the cohesion of such a group, and nothing beside that.

Of course, not every ethnocentrist believes that his people are better than all other people. Plenty of modern ethnocentrists readily acknowledge that every tribe has a right to preserve its own culture. Still, the purpose remains the same, and that is to shield themselves from true absolutism.

True absolutism is a belief that there is a rank in everything, and not only that, but also a duty that commands that one has to use objective rather than subjective means to determine rank.

Ethnocentrists use subjective means. For example, they never question the value of their own culture. They simply take it for granted that it is good, simply because it is their own.

Liberalism is relativism on individual level, whereas traditionalism is relativism on collective level.

Next time you decide to respond to one of my posts, I suggest you to ask questions instead of rudely complaining that I am not clear enough for you.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:53 pm

Moreno wrote:2) Politeness. Politeness is a way of dealing with conflict and disagreement. It has advantages and disadvantages. Not being polite does also. To restrict oneself to politeness is tactically tying one's hand behind one's back. In complicated political action, being polite with entities that are not polite is not being moral with oneself. Further there are polite truthers. So it is not an either or situation. Having a diverse approach is often best. Think of it as a parallel to good cop bad cop.


I didn't say you should be polite unconditionally. Honor demands of us to be polite towards those who are polite (toward us and others) and impolite towards those who are impolite (towards us or others.) Dishonorable people are either polite towards those who are not polite or impolite towards those who are polite. Truthers would often treat polite people harshly simply because they do not have "the right truth". See Kropotkin's last response for an example.

I knew this when I was a kid. Then I lost it in my early-mid 20's due to negative influence from the outside. And now I am trying to recover it.

What about people like Harbal and Kropotkin?
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:08 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
What about people like Harbal and Kropotkin?


Is this supposed to be some kind of QED?

What about people like you?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10649
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Harbal » Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:10 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
What about people like Harbal and Kropotkin?
He's stopped dignifying my posts with a response.
User avatar
Harbal
Thinker
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 12:53 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:15 pm

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the morally superior among you all?
It's you, dear reader. Nobody is better at arguing for self-less-ness than you.

And so it says in the holy book,
Those who are the most self-less will be elevated through likes on facebook.
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:08 pm

Narcissists never leave the confines of narcissism. Whatever they say or do, they always stay within the confines of narcissism.

They may acquire qualities they did not previously possess, and these qualities may be those qualities that are associated with everything that is opposite of narcissism, yet, they will never cease to be what they fundamentally are, and that is narcissists. In fact, in this way, they become bigger narcissists. (This is an observation that narcissists, being narcissists, often attempt to use against those who are not narcissists, or who are merely benign narcissists, and that in order to confuse them.)

Narcissists are not interested in discovering the reality of their value in relation to other beings. Instead, they prefer to choose it in advance and then fight for it.

As such, they are against finding their own place within a social hierarchy, instead believing that their job is to do anything within their power in order to come at the top of it.

They despise hierarchies, even when they say they love them. They only love them insofar they give them, or believe they can give them, the validation they crave so much. Only when they lose faith in their ability to come at the top, or to feel superior when they are not on the top, is it that they become honest about how much they hate them.

The former position is closely related to class-based aristocracy and elitism, the latter to democracy and egalitarianism.

Both positions are born out of deep hatred of hierarchies. Both positions, in other words, are positions of relativism, of unwillingness to admit that someone else might be better.

We can observe this when Arbiter of Change(/Outsider)(/AutSider) says, repeating what Satyr has said multiple times in the past, that "masculine" types are repulsed by statal authority because it is in their nature to be authority.

What they are actually saying is that narcissistic types are repulsed by statal authority because it is in their narcissistic nature to prove to themselves and others that they are the best.

Whether such a proof is truly a proof is irrelevant to them because the only thing that matters to them is fame -- to be seen by others as being the best.

In other words, they do not really believe in establishing social hierarchies that are grounded in objective reality, but merely in social hierarchies that make them feel superior (without, of course, requiring to be truly superior.)

Some narcissists can only feel good if they are at the top. As such, they disobey all social hierarchies that rank them lower than that. Others, on the other hand, are fine with lower positions, so as long they make them feel good.

Arbiter's position isn't exactly that of traditionalism. Traditionalism is too collectivistic, which is why we can hear people like Historyboy, who are quite traditionalistic, describing people like Arbiter as anti-social and cannibalistic.

Traditionalists, in general, aren't so preocuppied with being on the top of social hierarchy as individuals since their feelings of superiority are derived from the imagined superiority of their collective identity (such as ethnicity.) By believing that their own collective identity is superior to all other collective identities -- the way Western colonialists did -- they effectively justify the value of every single position within the social hierarchy of their own collective. Every single white person, for example, is to be considered superior to every single black person, no matter how poorly such a person is placed within the White social hierarchy.

Of course, not all of traditionalists have this need to feel superior to other collectives. Nonetheless, they are still motivated by the fear of questioning the value of their own collective identity.

Traditionalism is ethno-centric relativism. Arbiter's position, we can say, is nature-centric relativism. He calls himself naturalist, so perhaps we should call his position naturalism.

Whereas ethno-centric relativism uses ethnic identity as a standard for all those who possess it, and sometimes even wider than that, nature-centric relativism uses nature as a standard and that for everyone.

Ethno-centric relativism ranks people using a standard of their ethnicity. In some cases, such as for example Western-centric relativism, ethno-centric relativism ranks people -- all people -- using a standard of what they consider to be the best ethnic identity.

Nature-centric relativism, on the other hand, ranks people based on how well they are "in tune with their nature".

Both of these approaches at establishing hierarchy are flawed because both of them leave out certain aspects unquestionable. For ethnocentrism, that is the value of one's ethnic identity. For naturalism, that is the value of one's nature. As you can see, despite the fact that these approaches attempt to establish hierarchy, they are flawed because they are subjective.

It is not objectivism that is the problem, but subjectivism. If everyone was objective, everything would be perfect. But the reality is, most people aren't.

With narcissists, the discussion is always confined to subjectivism, as they do not really believe in objectivism (what they call "objectivism" is in actuality subjectivism.) All of their discussion consists merely in identifying what kind of subjectivism is the best kind of subjectivism.

Subjectivism is fundamentally blind and rigid. As such, it is necessarily tyrannical. Objectivism, on the other hand, is perceptive and flexible. As such, it is respectful.

To be objective does not mean "to follow rules". To be objective means to perceive. Following rules is often blind, hence, it has more to do with being subjective.

We are well aware of monarchs whose lack of objectivity results in a tyrannical rule. A tyrannical rule is tyrannical because it lacks perceptiveness. Such a rule need not be codified. A monarch need not follow a strict set of laws that he, or someone else, has codified in a document or a holy book. It's enough that his own spontaneous actions lack in perceptiveness. Such a monarch, I hope you'll agree, is clearly a narcissist.

Then we have dual kingships such as that of Sparta. Here, we had two "monarchs". Scare quotes because if there are wto monarchs then they are no monarchs. The two monarchs may be objective individually, but the fact that there was no single intelligence choosing one of the two viewpoints means that their objectivity was necessarily corrupted. It also suggests narcissism on the part of kings, as they were apparently unwilling to duel each other, instead being content with such an ugly, and clearly ego-stroking, compromise that is dual kingship.

Finally, we have constitutional governments and democracies which further restrict perceptiveness.

The only thing that can work is an absolute rule of a monarch who is highly perceptive. Everything else is a terrible compromise that betrays egoism and narcissism on the part of those willing to defend such a government.

To conlude: the important thing to understand is that nacissists do not lack objectivity, they are just not dominated by it. No matter how objective they become, they never cease to be fundamentally subjective.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Moreno » Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:37 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Moreno wrote:2) Politeness. Politeness is a way of dealing with conflict and disagreement. It has advantages and disadvantages. Not being polite does also. To restrict oneself to politeness is tactically tying one's hand behind one's back. In complicated political action, being polite with entities that are not polite is not being moral with oneself. Further there are polite truthers. So it is not an either or situation. Having a diverse approach is often best. Think of it as a parallel to good cop bad cop.


I didn't say you should be polite unconditionally. Honor demands of us to be polite towards those who are polite (toward us and others) and impolite towards those who are impolite (towards us or others.) Dishonorable people are either polite towards those who are not polite or impolite towards those who are polite. Truthers would often treat polite people harshly simply because they do not have "the right truth". See Kropotkin's last response for an example.

I knew this when I was a kid. Then I lost it in my early-mid 20's due to negative influence from the outside. And now I am trying to recover it.

What about people like Harbal and Kropotkin?
I haven't read many of their posts. But then it is a generalization from some people in a group. Perhaps it is even a tendency in Truthers. But then it isn't fully coupled to the beliefs of the group. Any marginalized position will be treated poorly, in general, and may in turn as a tendency be impolite or worse. My main reaction to your post was that it is arguing that a group that is wrong is also narcissistic, becuase that group is seeing a problem or phenomenon that is not there. This abstract idea could be carried to many if not all groups. Most positions can be broken down into viewing the other side as saying something is real that is not. Or not as real as they make it out to be. This means that if you are wrong you are also a narcissist, in general. It seems to me people should be viewed as simply wrong, if they are wrong. If for some other reasons they are also narcissisitic, fine, than they get that label also.

On the more specific You are polite. Sometimes amazingly polite in the face of rudeness. Kudos to you for living up to your values. But you can also be very condescending. This is a type of game played in many cultures and perhaps that is fine in yours or fits your values, but I would prefer the aggression to be direct. Otherwise you end up with a game where insults are nicely wrapped with bows and the person insulting can they cry foul when the other person responds with a direct, blunt impoliteness.

A nice little historical scene: Tecumseh is sitting at some negotiation with a US Cavalry officer. They are on the same bench. T keeps sliding over so he gets in the persoal space of the officer. The office slides away, several times. Finally the officer pushes off of T and starts yelling at him. T says calmly: 'savage, animal.'

This is not to argue that H and K are good little posters or that nothing should be done. Or that one must put up with Truthers who are jerks. I am trying to separate out what seem like conflated issues, cut back on the generalizatino and then also explain that politeness
serves
the dominant power.

In any society those in power have mechanisms in place, inertia if you will metaphorically, that support their interests. If people with other views or who are treated poorly or lied to are polite as rule, orderly, civilly obedient, the intertia of that society will serve the interests of the dominant position. Time passes. People who might have been supportive of a minority opinion lose interest. Evidence can be hidden. More abuse takes place, more lies. More layers.

If that groups is rude, takes to the street, chains themselvse to buildings, shouts at meetings
the counters the inertia and the inevitable pull of the system to reinforce dominant positions.

The best strategy, I think, is to combine. Have polite rational negotiators with evidence and papers and videos, etc. Unflappable people, calm, logical, perhaps even occasionally condescending.
AND have disruptive, rude people. This creates the most possible pressure on dominant positions for reasons one can deduce from what I have said and from common sense.

If the truthers are wrong,t hey are wrong. Some are certainly going to be narcissitic, it's common.
If they are right, well, then it is good they are using a diverse strategy, even if most of the rude ones may not be consciously (though perhaps intuitively) choosing to be for this reason.
If they are partially right - for example, there was a stand down by some portion of US intelligence), ditto.

Now on this specific topic I have bias. I think the official version cannot be correct. Building 7 was obviously demolished professionally, for example. There are many reasons to believe this, not just the way it fell, what happens with fires in that kind of building, but also what was heard on the street, what the owner of the building said, what police said before the collapse and more. There are other parts of the official version that just do not hold water, for me, but that seems the easiest one to sow seeds of doubt in someone who is not going to put in much time and need not have much expertise. What actually occured that day, behind the scenes as it were, I am not sure of.

But I have argued precisely along the lines i have here in defense of people who hold views I disagree with.

Another angle on this can be found in Piven and Cloward's Poor People's Movements. They studies how social change occurs. Being reasonable does not work. You get bureaucratized to death. Being rude and uncivil does lead to change. I think there are parallels when one moves from the sociological level to the personal level.

And don't forget, Truthers in mainstream media are portrayed as crazy, wackos and this was done repeatedly for long periods. Truthers include for example, very large groups of demolition experts, engineers and architects who do not believe the Building 7 story. If some of these likely very anally rational people have outbursts on occasion when they are repeatedly called nutjobs and told they must be Jew haters because of their skepticism, well, it's understandible. But then a good number of them are, like you, able to simply come back again with their reasons for disagreeing.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:05 pm

Moreno wrote:My main reaction to your post was that it is arguing that a group that is wrong is also narcissistic, becuase that group is seeing a problem or phenomenon that is not there.


That's not what I said. A man who is wrong is not necessarily a truther. And a truther is not necessarily wrong about what he's saying. Sometimes, he is right. As I said earlier:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:You see, truthers are rarely wrong about the kind of truths they are truthing about. It's just that they miss the point that their decision making process, lacking in faculty of pure reason, is an inferior one, which is why, others are more likely to dismiss what they accept as truth. Not deny, but simply dismiss, as in, it's irrelevant.


Many times what they say is indeed true. Here's an example:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:Another example of truthism is gender-centrism which aims to relate everything back to one of the genders. Few of the renowned truthers actually realize that if you choose as your axiom that everything can be related back to one of the genders, that you will, provided that you are skilled enough, manage to relate everything back to one of the genders. Truthers generally do not understand that we do not disagree with their ability to relate everything back to one of the genders, but with their choice of gender as a lens through which to interpret reality.


This is a common problem. For example, when Westerners speak of other people as being clearly inferior to them, citing that they have not achieved the same kind of achievements that Westerners did, this is an example of a "truth" that is only true when you take the premise that the Western standard of evaluation is better than that of other people as true. It's an example of circular reasoning and of unwillingness to question the value of one's standards.

There are many more examples. But I'm not going to cite them now.

A truther, it's important to understand, is not simply a person who is wrong. A truther is a person who is dominated by need to prove himself to be truthful. He's fundamentally a narcissist. Narcissists are defined by the need to prove themselves. Truthers are a special case of narcissists who compete for attention by proving that they are the most truthful of all people.

You will often find them trying to justify their narcissim by appealing to theory of evolution -- the most truthful of all theories -- by repeating that "men are the expandable gender". This is based on the observation that women are more useful to the preservation of society than men are.

The question we want to ask is: how is it that people who obsess so much over truth end up being the opposite of truthful?

I am reminded of Aristotle who said the following of Spartans:

It is the standards of civilized men not of beasts that must be kept in mind, for it is good men not beasts who are capable of real courage. Those like the Spartans who concentrate on the one and ignore the other in their education turn men into machines and in devoting themselves to one single aspect of city's life, end up making them inferior even in that.


One has to note that Aristotle is the father of modern narcissism, despite what he says in the above. He was the tutor of Alexander of Macedon, the greatest narcissist of all time, and he was the founder of Western civilization. He was also a materialist and he was pro-democracy. The above has value, but it has to be kept in mind that such an insight does not necessarily make one free from narcissism.

The problem is that truthers are not interested in truth as much as they are interested in acquiring fame. When fame is one's end, one selects based on what guarantees fame. Sometimes, that may be truth. Sometimes, that may be a lie. Sometimes, one may have to avoid having an opinion altogether. It all depends on what satiates a need to be seen as the best.

Truthers are not to be confused with objective people. The two are opposed to each other. Objective people, it is interesting to note, have a much easier time admitting they are wrong.

Side note:
Pay close attention to quotes of my own writings in this post and notice how I made a narcissistic comparison between me and Marcus Aurelius? Most truthers will quickly pick up on this clue and use it against me, as a definite proof that I am yet another narcissist. In this instance, I used it intentontionally, to deceive, but there are also times when I would use it unintentionally. In such cases, it still wouldn't be a sign of narcissism proper, but merely of benign form of narcissism. But truthers won't understand because they don't care. They have a need that they have to satiate, and they will satiate it no matter what.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:06 pm

Freedom is one of those confusing terms that is very hard to define. In the past, each time I tried to define it, it ended up being not quite satisfactory. This time, however, I will make one hopefully last attempt to put an end to the eternal problem of definition of the very difficult concept of freedom. Let's hope this time I'll succeed.

Freedom is the ability to express one's racial type to the fullest. As such, freedom is not exclusive to any racial type. It's what every racial type requires in order to express itself fully. This also means that every racial types sees freedom in its own particular way.

"Being true to oneself" is another phrase for "being free" which means it is another phrase for "expressing one's racial type to the fullest".

Racial type cannot be transcended. At least not within a lifetime. One cannot change one's racial type. It's what is commonly referred to as nature.

What is possible, however, is to imitate another racial type as a part of one's own racial type.

But more importantly, what is possible is to be periodically consumed by another racial type. This phase of consumption is what is otherwise known as slavery. Not unfreedom, because unfreedom merely means that one is not expressing one's racial type to the fullest; but slavery, because one is not merely failing to express one's own racial type, but is actively expressing another racial type.

Though everyone belongs to a single racial type, that does not mean that everyone possesses within themselves only features of a single racial type. Rather, it's more accurate to think of a hierarchy of features that may or may not belong to the same racial type.

A racial type may be pure or impure. This simply indicates whether all features of one's being belong to the same racial type (purity) or whether there are features that belong to different racial types (impurity.)

A racial type may be stable or unstable. This indicates the stability of hierarchy. A stable hierarchy means that the dominant racial type is less likely to change when under pressure. An unstable hierarchy, on the other hand, means that the dominant racial type is more likely to change when under pressure.

Stable types can be pure or impure, whereas unstable types can only be impure. A type that is both stable and pure is called perfect.

The most interesting of all types are impure types as they can easily lead to confusion. For example, if an impure type consists of a dominant racial type A and a subordinate racial type B, then it becomes very easy to confuse it with another impure type that consists of a dominant racial type B and a subordinate racial type A.

Another interesting observation is that an impure racial type will find it easy to consider its dominant racial type to be superior to its subordinate racial type. This is purely on the ground that it associates its subordinate racial type with instability. By pure chance, such a conclusion might be right. But we're rarely that lucky.

Of course, not everyone makes such a mistake, but it is a common one, especially among egoistic racial types that are heavily self-referential.

This knowledge will be very useful against naturocentrism -- advocated by people like Satyr and Arbiter -- that relies heavily on statistical evidence in order to gaslight out of existence the rare, and indeed, the superior racial types in order to protect from criticism their own inferior, and very common, narcissistic racial type.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Harbal » Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:55 pm

Magnus.
I have been attacked by several people lately for criticising without putting forward any logical arguments for doing so. That is all very well but, when it comes to posts like most of yours, posts that consist of senseless ranting mixed in with false presuppositions and groundless conclusions, it is nigh on impossible to get a grasp onto anything that lends itself to critical analysis. In other words: Even though it is clearly rubbish it is very difficult to find a way of explaining why.
User avatar
Harbal
Thinker
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 12:53 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby AutSider » Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:05 am

Not difficult, more like time-consuming.
User avatar
AutSider
BANNED
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:04 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Apr 16, 2016 4:19 am

Harbal, I was only referring to a couple instances from my memory ... I think you do a great job as was said earlier of deflating people with little text...

Magnus is obsessed with the big words...

Truth and ego...

Magnus, apparently thinks he has no ego, even though he responds to posts...

And Truthers are people who point out that Magnus responds to his posts, and that he thus, has an ego!

The whole jist of this mess of posting...

I am Magnus, like me for who I am, no matter what!

I kid you not!

For Magnus, ego is the scourge of all ... Even though he has one, a very big one!

But because he says he has none... Were all supposed to go... "Wow Magnus has mind boggling integrity!"

And then truth !! Well shit!! There's no truth, even though Magnus states his... The Truthers are all assholes!! And were supposed to go...

"Magnus, the depth of not only your integrity, but this astonishing insight leads me to believe you are the best ever. It's so clear now ... Because you are the master of ego and truth !! How did I not see it...??? I was so stupid!"


I actually wrote a post to James about this that I think is pertinent ..,

viewtopic.php?p=2601217#p2601217
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10649
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Harbal » Sat Apr 16, 2016 7:03 am

Ecmandu.
I have no complaints about any of your past comments to me and I think your assessment of Magnus is pretty well on target.
User avatar
Harbal
Thinker
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 12:53 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:23 am

Either you want to discuss or you do not want to. I understand that if discussion is time-consuming that you won't be willing to discuss. I too am not that happy to discuss with people such as Arbiter, Satyr and the rest. And not merely because discussing with them is time-consuming, but also because they are -- that they have proven themselves over and over again -- to be dishonorable people.

That said, you either discuss or you leave. Everything else is circularity.

Cyber-bullying is a sign that you're incapable not only of discussing, but also of leaving discussion. The purpose of cyber-bullying is to make up for the confidence that you have lost. It's about gathering fictional evidence in order to support what you used to think before you started reading what others have to say.

The moment you start cyber-bullying is the moment you admit defeat. And the rest is circular reasoning. Trying to invent reasons to justify cyber-bullying.

Harbal is one such cyber-bully. Arbiter is another. Satyr is yet another. Ecmandu also belongs to the camp, but not to the same extent.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:38 am

Harbal wrote:Magnus.
I have been attacked by several people lately for criticising without putting forward any logical arguments for doing so. That is all very well but, when it comes to posts like most of yours, posts that consist of senseless ranting mixed in with false presuppositions and groundless conclusions, it is nigh on impossible to get a grasp onto anything that lends itself to critical analysis. In other words: Even though it is clearly rubbish it is very difficult to find a way of explaining why.


The underlying premise is that you are here to criticize. You aren't. You are here to disrupt. You are not at all interested in putting forward logical arguments.

Furthermore, I never asked you to post on my topic. I never asked you to criticize me. And I never asked you to explain anything. You are not obliged to do so. You are doing it not because you were asked to do it, but quite simply because you're a troll whose sole presence on this topic is to disrupt.

It is absolutely fine if you have difficulty parsing my posts. It's also absolutely fine if you think that my posts consist of "senseless ranting mixed in with false presuppositions and groundless conslusions". However, that in no way, shape or form justifies your behavior, which consists in being disrespectful towards me.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Moreno » Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:13 am

Harbal wrote:Magnus.
I have been attacked by several people lately for criticising without putting forward any logical arguments for doing so. That is all very well but, when it comes to posts like most of yours, posts that consist of senseless ranting mixed in with false presuppositions and groundless conclusions, it is nigh on impossible to get a grasp onto anything that lends itself to critical analysis. In other words: Even though it is clearly rubbish it is very difficult to find a way of explaining why.

Nah, lazy, at best, likely disingenous or worse. If you see a 'false presupposition' write a short post explaining why it is a false presupposition. Just focus on one thing. That's a discussion.

The same thing can be done with a 'groundless conclusion.' Write the conclusion he presents and say you cannot see justification for this conclusion. He can then say 'well, I argued that X was true because of....' and show what he has already written that you missed, or he can justify now in response to you now. See? You build from some single item and have a discussion or argument. You move from the starting position to something extended from it.

This 'I am so overwhelmed by all your errors I cannot argue against any of them or make sense myself' makes little sense to me. It is as if he has the power to eliminate your ability to think critically. His posts are not gibberish, which is clear also to you since you know some of his presuppositions and notice his conclusions.

If you can do this, fine, do it. If not, you have a problem regardless of whether Magnus has one or not.

And I read the OP. He puts forth many ideas that can be part of a philosophical discussion. Agree, disagree, ask for clarification, demand some greater justification, whatever, but if you think YOUR only possible responses are sniping this shows a weakness in your own critical intelligence.

Why not demonstrate you can do that? ACtually challenge his ideas.
Last edited by Moreno on Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:19 am

I am new to being a truther however senseless this endeavor is in my current paradigm/matrix. No logic to be found means no logic...period.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7651
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:23 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:The purpose of cyber-bullying is to make up for the confidence that you have lost. It's about gathering fictional evidence in order to support what you used to think before you started reading what others have to say.


There is a slight imprecision in the above that bullies will be quick to exploit in order to prove that I am wrong and that they are right. This slight imprecision is the apparent suggestion that bullies only bully those who are the cause of their lower level of confidence. Interesting to note is that, this is almost never the case. Bullies in general never bully their own bullies. Rather, they prefer to bully those who are completely innocent.

How would a bully exploit the above?

By saying that his victim -- in this particular case me -- did nothing wrong to him. This is not a lie, it's just irrelevant, because the main point is that he is motivated by his lower level of confidence that was created by someone, not necessarily by his victim.

For this reason, it is extremely tiring to talk to these people, and instead of talking to them, what we should be doing is physically assaulting them. If we actually could. But that's what we should be striving to do. Not to talk to them.

Modern pseudo-civilized people would consider such noble impulsivity to be a form of savagery. If they were to interfer, they too would deserve to be physically assaulted.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:28 am

Civility is the lack of knowing the forces that stand against you. You type civilized words to feel them out and in turn they reveal their true colors with or without venom.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7651
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Harbal » Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:07 pm

Moreno wrote:Why not demonstrate you can do that? ACtually challenge his ideas.
Because he's not worth that much effort. So I suppose you're right, I am lazy.
User avatar
Harbal
Thinker
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 12:53 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:09 pm

What you're doing Magnus , I see in a lot of people...

You use many BIG words (not long ones) and then you try to own the words by confusing people, then you, just as if a god above, once people except that you own the fantastic words... Mete out your integrity ownership onto others in the form of blessings or curses... You're basically a gossipy drama queen who doesn't want to do the work, but wants all the praise.. And here you are, criticizing people who mirror that part of you.

Moreno likes to be the brilliant psychologist in much the same way , but much of his analysis is trite...

I'm not the biggest fan of digging into people like this , but several posters suffer this problem greatly.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10649
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:12 am

Some observations about bullies:

There are two ways a bully can react to criticism: by ignoring it, the way Harbal does, or by accepting it and then adapting to it by softening their approach. In the latter case, they become bigger bullies, all the while appearing as if they have overcome it.

The point is that bullies never cease to be bullies. It's simply not in their nature.

Compare that to people who can bully, and who did engage in bullying at some points in their life, but who nonetheless came out of it cleanly, apparently because bullying is not, and has never been, in their nature.

We must discriminate between the two types. The key difference between the two types, it seems to me, is that the latter does not really enjoy to bully people, whereas the former does (and is extremely defensive about it.)

This can be explained as werewolf syndrome where two different racial types compete for domination within an individual. Eventually, the dominant type comes out at the top and looks down upon the other. Barbarians will look down upon any trace of nobility within themselves, while noble people will look down upon any trace of barbarism within themselves. Finally, stability is achieved, where the foreign racial type is successfully dominated. Barbarians with their noble traits kept under control (revealing themselves in their selective, and in many cases also narcissistic, empathy) and noble people with barbarian traits kept under control (revealing themselves in their benign barbarisms and narcissisms.)

It's also important to recall that just because a racial type is subordinated to another racial type does not mean that it is inferior. It simply means that the other racial type, rather than this one, is what defines one's nature. To think that this is the only way to determine the rank between racial types is to admit the circular nature of one's racial type.

An observation about narcissists:

Narcissists tend to be highly critical of benign narcissism, going so far as to call it "vanity", suggesting that their own narcissism has nothing to do with vanity. Apparently, malignant narcissists are extremely good at convincing themselves and others that they are, in fact, not narcissists. This makes perfect sense considering the fact that being seen as a narcissist is not good for one's reputation. (Unless one can convince the public that being a narcissist is a good thing, or at the very least, that being a narcissist is a necessity of nature, in the sense that, we are all narcissists because our nature -- human or merely masculine -- did not, and does not, allow us to be anything else. One thing is for sure: they will never dare to attempt to genuinely answer the question of what is better, being a narcissist or not being a narcissist. Truth, unless it is a means to an end, is simply not what interests them.)

Ironically enough, the reason why malignant narcissists look down upon benign narcissists is not because benign narcissists are narcissistic, but because they are not narcissistic enough.

We can observe this, for example, when Wizard looks down upon Phoneutria for posting her pictures online. What we have here is a malignant narcissist (Wizard) looking down upon an act of benign narcissism (Phoneutria posting her pictures online.)

A million dollar question: what could possibly be problematic about some girl posting her pictures online once in a while? Of course, it might be some sort of narcissism, but so what? Not every kind of narcissism is violent. At least she's not bullying people the way Wizard does.

The thing is that, narcissists must outcompete everyone else. That's their purpose in life. They are envious people -- and they make no secret about it -- who want to have it all. They are wannabe-Jews (unless they are already Jews, of course.)

At first, it may appear as if they are trying to resolve some sort of objective problem, but in reality, their problems are purely subjective, concerning themselves with the question of "how can I prove myself worthy?"

A narcissist who cannot be popular within present social circumstances turns away from and against present social circumstances toward some historical social setting.

A narcissist who cannot prove himself worthy by getting laid with as many 10's as possible will turn against recreative sex and pro reproductive sex. Initially, this will be a radical opposition. They will be against all recreative sex. Later on, they will somehow come to realization that such a radical opposition is a sign of weakness -- not good for their fame -- so they will accomodate themselves by letting themselves engage in recreative sex from time to time. Still, they will hold reproductive sex in high regard, and would look down upon anyone who does not do so.

They will often make ridiculous claims such as "Nature meant us to reproduce" as if Nature is some sort of judge on what is good and what is bad. What they really want to say is that "our distant ancestors wanted us to reproduce". When you cannot get recognition from present day society, the only thing left is to seek it from your now long dead ancestors. And because noone accepts such an arbiter, you will have to force it on everyone else, by repeating that "Nature meant us to reproduce" and by shaming everyone who does not reproduce, merely because they are not reproducing.

The interesting consequence is the perverted idea that recreative sex is somehow more dangerous than reproductive sex, when in reality, it's the other way around. Recreative sex is benign. Reproductive sex, on the other hand, is malignant, as it brings a new life, without its consent, into a finite ecosystem.

Narcissists believe in the idea of balance, in the sense that, it's best to have everything in moderation. This is apparently good for fame. Others won't be able to say that they have something you don't. But you will be able to tell everyone else that, though they may have one thing in large amounts, they don't have everything else you have.

All of this exemplifies an archetypal narcissist. Real life narcissists are much more cunning, and convincing them that they are narcissists literally impossible (unless, of course, as I said, they are happy to believe that narcissism is either a desirable thing or just a universal necessity that cannot be escaped, in which case, what would be literally impossible is convincing them that narcissism is not desirable or that not everyone is a narcissist.)
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:19 am

Ecmandu wrote:What you're doing Magnus


What I am doing, Ecmandu, is I am observing reality, in particular, I am observing all the kinds of psychological violence currently going on, and I am analyzing it and countering it in order to protect both myself and others.

In plain terms, I am thinking about world and I am sharing my thoughts. Not because I want to be famous, as you seem to think, but because I want to solve the real, concrete, problems.

Just because I have a topic on a forum such as ILP where I post long-winded posts does not mean that I am an egoist or a narcissist.

Finally, you have to learn to make a difference between benign and malignant narcissism. Benign narcissism is permissible. Perhaps there are traces of benign narcissms in my posts, I can't tell. But if there are, you shouldn't hold it against me, because it is not the same as what I am discussing here, which is malignant narcissism.

If anyone, it is you who is being a narcissist because you came into this topic with a conviction that you're right about me. You have an option to discuss with me, yet, you choose to treat me with disrespect.

Please, do us all a favor, and leave this topic alone.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]

cron