Home › Society › Philosophy › Just a few formalities...

Just a few formalities...

Started by William Gonzalez3 · Oct 9, 2006 · 👁 4 views · 25 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants

William Gonzalez3 RegularOP

276 messages
joined May 2009

#1 · Oct 9, 2006

Druid said:Regarding the topic itself—I don't really feel like writing much about it because, for me, philosophizing isn't just some casual sort of philosophy.

Prompted by this post, I’ve started doing some thinking of my own.
My head was already aching from earlier—I took quite a hard hit yesterday (there was a lot of blood, which ended up mixing with the blood from an older, deep wound on my chest)—so I was actually able to reflect without that constant, nagging anxiety about the inevitable headache that usually clouds my thoughts whenever I try to think clearly.

Here are my rather headache-inducing questions, which will undoubtedly be met with lukewarm interest, witless comments, awkward replies, mutual suspicion, accusations, intrigue, double standards, anger, disbelief, uncertainty, longing, sadness, laughter, and, of course, the watchful eye of the moderators.

Basically—what exactly constitutes "some kind of philosophy," and what does it even mean to philosophize?
In other words, are there certain topics that are inherently more philosophical than others?
Is philosophy a hierarchical thing—meaning some subjects are "more" philosophical while others are "less"—or can absolutely anything be turned into a philosophical inquiry if you approach it correctly?

What does a true philosophical approach even look like, and what criteria must a subject meet to be considered worthy of philosophical study?

And what was Heraclitus getting at when he suggested that one must dig through vast amounts of earth just to find crumbs of wisdom?
Can we perhaps seek wisdom somewhere beyond the earth?

Brenda Cook4 Regular

373 messages
joined Sep 2010

#2 · Oct 9, 2006

Taylor Campbell4 said:
What even constitutes a philosophical approach here? I mean, what kind of criteria does a topic actually need to meet to be considered philosophically significant?

Give me a break,
just
high-brow topics
that our esteemed moderator
usually handles...
give me some n&n
preferably something
metaphysical...😛

Taylor Campbell4 Regular

369 messages
joined Jul 2009

#3 · Oct 10, 2006

Quincy:

Here are my headache-inducing questions—which will undoubtedly be met with lukewarm interest, mindless comments, awkward replies, mutual suspicion, accusations, intrigue, double standards, rage, disbelief, confusion, longing, sadness, laughter, and, naturally, a watchful eye from the moderators.

You forgot fear, contempt, and quite a few other things.
-----------------------

Quincy:

What even constitutes a philosophical approach, and what specific criteria does a topic need to meet to actually be considered philosophically valuable?

You think it's philosophically valuable??
-----------------------

So, am I allowed to start my own thread about miracles? 👍

mistyfox812 Regular

295 messages
joined Mar 2004

#4 · Oct 10, 2006

Gonna quote myself here 😁 from that thread about Zen and Heidegger:

mistyfox812 said:...And honestly, if you want to understand what "philosophical speech" actually looks like, just look at the gaps. Compare Zarathustra to Carnap, or Wittgenstein to Schelling, Plato to Spinoza, or even Kierkegaard to Leibniz... you'll see there's zero uniformity. Every major philosopher basically rewrites the definition of "philosophy" on the fly.
...
That’s why I brought up all these totally different ways of talking that still count as philosophy—there isn't some rulebook telling a thinker how they have to speak just to qualify. It's kind of like art; there’s no set manual for what an artist has to do for it to be considered "art."
Philosophy is defined by philosophers actually doing the work. Just like artists define what art is by actually making it.

As for this Philosophy subforum? If you're wondering whether something counts as philosophy or not, the only ones who really matter are—well—the moderators. 😉

hollowtrucker77 Regular

681 messages
joined Nov 2007

#5 · Oct 11, 2006

Just the simple fact that someone actually sits there and thinks for themselves is enough reason to call it philosophy, if you ask me.
We all went through that phase where we were young, clueless, and just trying to make sense of the world around us.
Honestly, the whole notion that anyone should try to steer or limit what another person thinks is just pathetic, and frankly, pretty dangerous.

Sam Flores71 Newcomer

4 messages
joined Oct 2006

#6 · Oct 13, 2006

Philosophy is essentially the act of contemplating the universe and our place within it; there isn't a single subject that should be
off-limits to its inquiry. Naturally, not all topics carry the same weight, and one shouldn't overlook the fact that
the "primary" branch of philosophy is metaphysics—that is, looking beyond mere physics once we have exhausted all the practical
questions. To attempt to philosophize about chemistry or basic physics is largely futile, just as it is quite useless to try
to solve the fundamental meaning of existence through physics, or to address complex moral and ethical dilemmas via
biology.

Conversely, even the most mundane questions can take on a philosophical dimension if one approaches them
from an unconventional angle. We all assume we understand what a chair is, for instance, yet even the concept of a chair
invites deep contemplation. In a philosophical sense, a chair is far removed from its everyday utility.
Is such an object defined by its function or merely by its physical presence? Is there such a thing as a chair that
one cannot actually sit upon, and if so, does it truly qualify as a chair? By what mechanism does something that was not a chair
suddenly become one? And so on...

Heraclitus suggested that one must think extensively just to grasp a modicum of understanding, and I find myself inclined to agree...

mistyscout2 Active Member

197 messages
joined Feb 2007

#7 · Oct 13, 2006

Man, between being totally wiped out and dealing with that somewhat cynical opening post—not to mention getting my words twisted in a pretty unethical way by the executioner on one hand and two decent responses on the other (you'll have to find those yourselves)—I really don't feel the need to go deep on this topic. As for that whole OCD thing where I feel compelled to reply to every single thread, I try my best not to feed into the hype, and when I do, it’s usually just enough to make my point, often accompanied by a little smiley face here and there.

Like N & N mentioned, it makes sense that the moderators are the ones who decide where a thread belongs. In terms of my process, if I think a topic is in the wrong place, I’ll move it to the appropriate subforum (so far, nobody has complained, and even if they did, I think we could settle it politely) along with an explanation if I feel it’s necessary. Sometimes things are just obvious, like spam threads or topics about the nature of LJS, where the place for them is clear. I don't really feel the need to justify myself to anyone who thinks an explanation is required, but apparently, the threads I haven't moved are still hovering on the edge of that famous philosophy the executioner was talking about with such lovely cynicism.

So, executioner, by separating the person from the deed in that classic philosophical way—and as someone who has learned enough about forgiveness to not feel the need to write a manifesto about it on a thread that doesn't quite fit his current philosophical vibe—I would kindly ask you to stop taking my words out of context. I don't like it when people do that because it ruins any sense of consistency, but I honestly don't have the time or the desire to jump around correcting everyone else's misunderstandings. I'm responding now specifically because this feels like a blatant provocation (though I won't get into the weeds regarding whether that's intended for good or bad).

For the same reason, I know exactly why I wrote what I wrote, and I know why the thread stayed in the "Philosophy" subforum. In other words, I know why I left it here despite saying—in a fairly "serious" tone, mind you—that it "isn't exactly much philosophy." If you really want to play devil's advocate and dig for details, I can write you a long report about it via private message. Though, I hope you don't expect me to put something like that on my daily to-do list. It's not like I owe anyone an explanation, nor am I looking to prove myself to anyone—especially if that person isn't trying to be a decent conversationalist or anything close to it.

Otherwise, the topic is perfectly legitimate and falls almost into the meta-theoretical realm. That's the job of philosophy, after all: to constantly re-examine itself... in a strange, almost inexplicable way. To a layman, that might imply a sort of constant fluidity that sounds negative, but you don't truly know what philosophy is until you experience it. It's like music; you can't just describe it using amplitudes, frequencies, or other technical jargon.
The second thing is that we are all here together, trying to shed light on things for one another through dialogue, "illuminating" each other both consciously and unconsciously. Not in a dogmatic sense, but in the sense that we try to draw the best out of one another, almost maieuticallly. At least, that's what I'm aiming for, though I can't speak for you. So, here is a partial answer—the best I can do right now since I'm just a human being and not a 100% concentration of Logos—to your question and, secondly, to your "not-exactly-ethical-communication" approach. If you're asking which textbook teaches that kind of approach and what its criteria are, the answer is found in a healthy human heart. Best.

William Gonzalez3 RegularOP

276 messages
joined May 2009

#8 · Oct 13, 2006

To be honest, I haven't really felt much motivation to keep contributing to this PDF until now.

Bradley Fisher20 Active Member

142 messages
joined May 2005

#9 · Oct 13, 2006

I’m telling you, nothing exists just for its own sake... not even philosophy. What’s the point of all that deep thinking anyway? It's just a way to organize your thoughts. And why bother organizing them? I don't know. I guess I use it when I need to justify how I'm feeling. And right now, my feelings are pretty damn revolutionary...

William Gonzalez3 RegularOP

276 messages
joined May 2009

#10 · Oct 13, 2006

Bradley Fisher20 said:I’d argue that nothing truly exists just for its own sake—not even philosophy. What is philosophy actually for? To organize our thoughts, I suppose. But why bother organizing them? I’m not entirely sure. Personally, I tend to use that mental organization when I'm trying to justify my own emotions. And, well, my emotions tend to be somewhat revolutionary in nature.

I don't think it works quite like that.

Philosophy serves itself, really—because the moment you try to make it serve some other purpose, you start imposing limits on it. It gains a specific goal, and at that point, it stops being philosophy altogether.

I see philosophy as being a bit like friendship.
A friendship based purely on utility isn't a true friendship.
It only lasts as long as the benefit remains.
It has a beginning, and an inevitable end.

Real friendship—the kind that develops because someone is simply who they are, or perhaps despite who they are—exists without any ulterior motive regarding what we might gain from them. That kind of friendship, much like philosophy, does bring certain benefits. But those benefits aren't the purpose or the foundation of the relationship; they are more of an unavoidable byproduct.

The same applies to philosophy.
One of the side effects of philosophy is a better alignment of one's thoughts.
But that... well, that isn't the actual purpose of philosophy.

William Gonzalez3 RegularOP

276 messages
joined May 2009

#11 · Oct 13, 2006

Druid said:I don't really feel any need to justify myself to anyone who thinks an explanation is required, though topics that haven't been properly shifted are clearly still hovering on the edge of that famous philosophical realm which William Gonzalez3 talks about with such cynical undertones.

Sure, so why don't you be a dear and explain what exactly constitutes something "philosophical" and what those boundaries actually are?

Regarding the whole issue of taking things out of context—I suspect that the emojis you posted wouldn't actually change the core of the matter much.
I mean, if the topic simply didn't align with your own philosophical sensibilities, it would have been much nicer to just say, "this doesn't suit my philosophical outlook."
Instead, you didn't do that; rather, you claimed this wasn't "real" philosophy while asserting that you, specifically, are the one doing the philosophizing 😁 😉 (which feels quite offensive, demeaning, and patronizing, regardless of how many emojis you hide behind or what tone you adopt)
So, I am politely asking you—what defines philosophy, and how does one actually engage in it?

And I would ask that you please drop this superior attitude of an insulted prima donna and try to explain yourself—without all the grand apologies, without questioning my ethics, and without all that talk of pure hearts, innocent lambs, and similar tactics used to shift the blame back onto me in some fruitless bickering—what does this actually mean to you? So, please, try to let go of these negative emotions you've gathered and be kind enough to give us an explanation.

Also, I’d prefer if you responded here rather than in a private message, because I believe everyone on this forum has a right to know what qualifies as philosophical. That way, we can all use those criteria when starting new threads, ensuring no one accidentally appears "unphilosophical" by picking topics that aren't deep enough.
Doing so would significantly improve the overall quality of this forum.

P.S. My opening post wasn't intended to be hostile at all.
It was more... well, more resigned and perhaps a bit sad.

Bradley Fisher20 Active Member

142 messages
joined May 2005

#12 · Oct 13, 2006

Bradley Fisher20 said:it doesn't really work like that.

Philosophy exists for its own sake. The second you try to make it serve some other purpose, you're just trapping it in a box... giving it a specific goal ruins the whole point of it being philosophy.

Look, if you don't have any context, you aren't actually philosophizing—you're just throwing around fancy words to sound smart. That's what people call "pseudo-intellectualism," not actual philosophy. Honestly, if all you want to do is toss out catchphrases, maybe just quit philosophy entirely and go do something way more fun.

Like picking up hip hop or something. 👍

William Gonzalez3 RegularOP

276 messages
joined May 2009

#13 · Oct 13, 2006

Bradley Fisher20 said:Until you actually have context, you aren't really philosophizing—you're just throwing out slogans. That’s usually what people mistake for philosophy, rather than actual philosophical inquiry. Now, if your main goal is just to toss around catchy phrases, I might suggest stepping away from philosophy altogether and finding something much more entertaining.

Maybe try hip-hop. 👍

Yo, what kind of phrases, man?
What kind of context, man?
We've got no cash,
social welfare's screwing us all.

Everything is broken.
We're just living day to day.
Our bank accounts are empty.

But we're still smoking and drinking
and picking up good women
so don't get cocky, man
I'm rolling with a Magnum
just like Kalahan Heri

If you look at me wrong,
I'll blow you away.
But I gotta head out now
because there's a cold beer waiting for me.

(Now that I've tried my hand at hip-hop, I have to admit—I don't really see what's so fun about it.)

What exactly do you mean by the term "context"?
Did I ever claim that philosophy doesn't have its own context?
My point was simply that a thought should be free from intent and prejudice.
I suppose when someone tries to philosophize about society, they shouldn't aim to achieve something specific with that society—like trying to engineer an ideal utopia—because it won't work (in the process of trying to create one, they'd likely be forced to correct existing injustices with new ones, which just leads to a cycle of more injustice, and so on).

So, how does one properly philosophize about society?
By observing it. By asking the right questions through which that society can then be correctly interpreted.
For instance, a good question might be—how is it possible that people in America have a newer transit fleet than a Frenchman?
And why is that?
Is that an example of lacking context or just tossing out slogans?

mistyscout2 Active Member

197 messages
joined Feb 2007

#14 · Oct 13, 2006

Bradley Fisher20 said:I’d say nothing really exists just for its own sake, and philosophy is no different. What’s the point of it all? It’s about organizing your thoughts. And why would you need to organize them? I honestly don't know. Personally, I tend to lean on that organization whenever I feel the need to justify my own emotions—and my emotions usually feel pretty revolutionary.

To be honest, philosophy hasn't really been my go-to tool for sorting through my thoughts. I mean, we’ve had the brain and our own way of using it since we first became aware of ourselves, right? If I'm looking to organize my mental clutter, I usually turn to things like mnemonic devices, various tarot decks, or even stuff like those Tree of Life diagrams. Maybe what you were getting at was more about clarifying concepts, definitions, or judgments. For me, among other things, I see philosophy as a way to poke holes in things that seem perfectly obvious or self-evident at first glance...

mistyscout2 Active Member

197 messages
joined Feb 2007

#15 · Oct 13, 2006

I have to admit, I wasn't feeling even a tiny bit of negativity while I was typing that out. I just don't waste my emotional energy on people I don't know; I learned a long time ago that trying to do that over the internet is a pretty fool's errand.

William Gonzalez3 said:Sure, and now why don't you be a pal and explain to us exactly what constitutes philosophy and where its boundaries lie.

It seems like you weren't reading very closely again. You tend to interpret things however you want them to be—which I think everyone does to some extent, though you seem to have a real knack for it. How on earth am I supposed to tell anyone else what counts as philosophy or claim any kind of authority on the subject???! You’re basically handing me an authority that I simply don't possess, and honestly, I have no desire to hold it, because no one should be claiming that kind of status. Did you catch that part where Nietzsche wrote that a philosopher must constantly redefine what philosophy actually is? If you did, maybe it just didn't quite register in your brain, and therefore, it hasn't really reached you either.

William Gonzalez3 said:Regarding taking things out of context, I don't think all those emojis you posted change much of the situation.
Actually, if the topic just didn't align with your philosophical sensibilities, you could have just nicely said—this topic doesn't fit my philosophical sensibilities.
But you didn't say that, instead you claimed it wasn't "real" philosophy and that you felt like doing some actual philosophizing 😁 😉 (which feels insulting, demeaning, and patronizing no matter how many emojis you throw behind it or what tone you use)
so I'm asking you nicely—what is "real" philosophy and how does one actually philosophize?

Taking something out of context is taking something out of context, and once you strip away the surrounding meaning (and it wasn't just about the emojis here, but whatever), the meaning of what was taken changes fundamentally. Another thing is that I’m just a user here, just like you and everyone else; I just happen to have the ability to delete posts I find inappropriate. I have the privilege of clearing out a Viagra ad or moving a post that belongs more in Politics or Religion to the right section. I wrote that post as a regular user. If I were to go through and list all the nonsense you write and pull it out of context, I could probably make it sound like you're a pedophile or an arsonist or something, just by picking and choosing. If you were a moderator, would you deny your own constant chatting? Or would you realize that you're still just a user who can write whatever you want? My opinion isn't the final word on anything, but those who find issues with the things I write as a USER might find things in their own posts too, just like I find things in theirs. That's the whole point. The fact that you don't grasp certain things, or won't understand because you don't want to, or that you're bothered by a specific phrase because you're acting like a tough guy... that's not on me...
I'm not offended, and nobody can offend me unless I allow it. But if something turns my stomach, it's because someone isn't trying, when they take things out of context, or when they're generally being inconsistent—not because of my principles, but because they aren't putting in the effort to reach the truth. They care more about silly things like "authority," image, or what others think. Well, alright, considering we're dealing with someone who's clearly a fan of American teen movies, I guess I can't blame you.🙂.

William Gonzalez3 said:and I’d really prefer if you didn't just send me a private message about this, but instead posted it here where everyone can see. I honestly feel like all our members deserve to understand what constitutes a philosophical discussion, so they can use those same standards when starting new threads. That way, nobody ends up looking unphilosophical by posting topics that don't quite hit that mark.
It would also go a long way in improving the overall quality of the forum itself.

On my end, if you actually have an issue with me being "patronizing" or if you have something against me personally, I’d ask that you please approach me with some actual constructive criticism—which I’ll be happy to listen to if I find it helpful (assuming you truly care about improving how we communicate; otherwise, there isn't much point in us talking). Or, if you'd rather, you can just take your complaints about my "tone" straight to one of the administrators and let them handle it, while you continue playing the hero and defending this sub-forum against those incredibly dominant moderators who constantly push their own agendas (just look at their post counts).

William Gonzalez3 said:p.s. my opening post wasn't meant to be hostile in the slightest.
It felt more resigned and sad. [/COLOR]

I’d describe it more as pseudo-critical and unoriginaly cynical.
If you were feeling resigned because of THAT specific thing, well, that says more about your own personality than anything else. I don't know what kind of hang-ups you might be dealing with, and frankly, it's none of my business, but if you keep "criticizing" me this way by cherry-picking my words to suit your own narrative, we're going to have a problem. It feels like I have nothing better to do than spend my time justifying myself to someone who's basically just waiting for a gap in the conversation so they can head out for their weekly ritual of hitting the local pub every last Thursday of the month. I've made my position clear, and how things proceed from here is entirely up to you. And look, I don't have a personal vendetta against you—don't go making this into some huge psychological drama, especially since you seem pretty hypersensitive—but I definitely have an issue with this particular way of interacting. I'm not sure where the line for a "philosophical" debate is drawn, but I certainly know where my limit for tolerance lies 😉.

mistyscout2 Active Member

197 messages
joined Feb 2007

#16 · Oct 13, 2006

William Gonzalez3 said:So, what’s the right way to actually philosophize about society?
I guess you have to observe it closely, asking those specific questions that allow you to truly decode how everything works.
For example, a good starting question might be—how on earth is it possible that people here in the States have a newer fleet of cars than the average Frenchman?
And why is that?
Is this just a case of lacking context and throwing around empty buzzwords?[/COLOR]

If I were you, I'd probably stick to holding onto my beer mug and leave the heavy philosophy to the pros. Seriously. Either that, or maybe find a job in some massive government bureaucracy where you can spend all day following strict rules and knowing exactly what the criteria are for everything... But honestly, they don't really care for the drinkers over there because we tend to mess up the system's efficiency, so I suppose using philosophy as a sort of cover is a better bet for folks like us.

William Gonzalez3 RegularOP

276 messages
joined May 2009

#17 · Oct 13, 2006

mistyscout2 said:If I were you, I’d stick to the basics and leave the philosophy alone. Seriously. Either find a job in some government bureaucracy where you can spend all day following strict rules—where at least you'll know exactly what the criteria are—but they don't exactly love drinkers over there because it disrupts the system's efficiency, so people like you are better off hiding behind philosophy.

I'm honestly not sure how to take this...
whether it's meant as a brilliant counterargument to my post or just a dirty, condescending ad hominem disguised as "well-meaning" advice.

I'll choose to assume it was intended as a clever rebuttal.

That said, could you please explain which rigid rules or criteria I actually introduced?

All I said was that philosophy doesn't have one specific, predefined goal—that the act of philosophizing is its own purpose.
I suppose even that might seem like too much of a rigid, bureaucratic standard for you...

William Gonzalez3 RegularOP

276 messages
joined May 2009

#18 · Oct 13, 2006

mistyscout2 said:I have to admit, I didn't feel even a hint of negativity while I was writing that.

Of course you didn't. I think I was misled by the fact that you're trying to justify yourself—even though (I suspect you told yourself at least five times) you have absolutely nothing to apologize for. It’s the way you’re doing it, and honestly, the arguments you've chosen, that gives it away.
It seems I'm quite easy to fool, I suppose.

mistyscout2 said:You clearly weren't reading carefully again. You're just interpreting things however you want them to be—which I guess everyone does to some extent, but you seem to have a real knack for it.

Well, maybe I'm not quite as skilled as you are at using ad hominem attacks, but I'm certainly trying...

mistyscout2 said:How on earth am I supposed to tell others what philosophy is? Where would I even get the right to do that??! You're basically handing me an authority that I don't possess—and frankly, I don't even want it, because no one should claim that kind of "authority."

But you claimed that right yourself.
If you've forgotten what you actually said, maybe take a look back at the quote in the opening post.

mistyscout2 said:Did you even read the part where N & N wrote that "a philosopher must constantly re-define what philosophy is"? Because if you did, it doesn't seem like it really registered with you.

I did. And I actually agree with them.
Then again, I'm not entirely convinced that you do.
On paper, perhaps you do, but your actions and your words suggest otherwise.

mistyscout2 said:Taking something out of context is still taking it out of context.

Air is air.
Water is water.
Fire is fire.
And a tautology is a tautology.
The meaning of your sentence remains identical whether it's in context or out of it.

mistyscout2 said:I wrote that post as a user.

And that's exactly how I called you out—as a user. Did I say a single word against you in your capacity as a moderator?

mistyscout2 said:The fact that you just don't get certain things—or rather, you refuse to understand them because you're too busy playing the tough guy and acting offended by a simple phrase like "kindhearted"—is really no longer my concern...

It isn't the phrase itself that bothers me, I guess; it's more that you've become so tangled up in poetic language and these deep allegories meant to paint you as the "kindhearted victim," while casting me as some rude, broken maniac with a problem with authority. In all that maneuvering, you somehow—perhaps unintentionally, I suppose—managed to dodge the actual questions I asked. Generally speaking, it seems like you spend more time analyzing my character than actually addressing the serious points raised. I suppose that’s just how you subtle types operate.

mistyscout2 said:I'm not offended, and honestly, no one can offend me unless I allow it. But I do feel a sense of distaste when someone doesn't try, when they take things out of context, or when they're generally inconsistent—not in their principles, mind you, but because they aren't even attempting to reach the truth. They seem more concerned with trivialities like "authority," image, or what others think. Well, given that we're dealing with someone who enjoys American teen movies, I won't judge you too harshly 🙂.

Every time I think you couldn't possibly sink any lower, you manage to surprise me.
In what way, exactly, am I being inconsistent? And how could you possibly know what matters to me or what I'm trying to achieve?
It’s always easiest to blame the other person in hopes that no one notices your own flaws. It’s never your fault, right? And if it is, you just quickly cover it up by calling the other person an alcoholic, a bureaucrat, or saying they like American teen movies (though that last comment about the movies shows you didn't quite grasp what I was actually trying to convey in our previous discussion)

mistyscout2 said:And so you continue to play the saint, defending this sub-forum against those overwhelmingly dominant moderators (just look at the post counts) who insist on imposing their views on everyone else.

Excuse me?
Do you seriously think I'm waging some kind of crusade against the moderators?
I have never attacked you personally as a moderator, nor have I ever complained about your performance in that role.
However, I will certainly speak up whenever I encounter posts that drip with snobbish elitism, patronizing tones, or a sense of looking down on others.
Most of the comments directed at me fall into that category.
As for this supposed "crusade" against the moderators (which was mostly aimed at the Lead Mod), it was just a joke—a bit of good-natured teasing without any deeper meaning, which he understood as such.
I'm not sure if that concept is too presumptuous for you, or perhaps just not subtle enough.

mistyscout2 said:I would prefer to call it pseudo-critical and unoriginally cynical.

Whatever. You were the one who said your opinion doesn't carry any weight here anyway.

mistyscout2 said:If you're getting this worked up over THAT, it really just speaks to your own character. I don't know what kind of hang-ups you have—and honestly, that's not my business—but if you keep "criticizing" me like this, picking apart my specific points just to twist them for your own ends, then we’re going to have a problem.

It’s almost as if I have anything better to do than spend my time justifying myself to someone who spends every single little pause in a conversation just to rush out and grab a drink at the local pub because they need to celebrate the last Thursday of the month.

And I suppose this is also meant to be a counterargument...

mistyscout2 said:I've made my position clear, and how things proceed from here is entirely up to you. And no, I don't have a personal issue with you—don't go projecting extra insecurities onto this—but I do have an issue with that specific approach... I'm not sure where the line for philosophical debate lies, but I certainly know where the limit of my tolerance is 😉.

I'm not sure if you've realized it, but I am calling you out strictly based on what you've actually written.
You, on the other hand, seem to jump at every chance to make some deep, psychological commentary about me as a person.

So, that’s enough said about who actually has the issue here.

If the intent behind that quote was significantly different, then maybe be kind enough to explain the actual context of what you wrote.

I've already mentioned that I think the issue is simply that you didn't find the topic "philosophical" enough to engage with—at least not as a user.
Which you essentially confirmed with that insulting post of yours.
If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to apologize.
But I suspect that's not the case—that you're using these messy ad hominem attacks as a defense mechanism, trying to claim instead that the subject matter just didn't suit your "philosophical sensibilities."

p.s. 😉

Bradley Fisher20 Active Member

142 messages
joined May 2005

#19 · Oct 13, 2006

William Gonzalez3 said:Context? Man, what even is that... It’s everything! It’s the whole damn picture. You can't just grab one tiny little piece of a conversation or a situation and act like you know what's up. That's how people mess everything up... total chaos. It's the background, the vibe, the stuff happening before and after the actual words. Without it, you're just guessing... and usually guessing wrong...

When something just starts talking about itself... man, there’s zero context left. It’s just empty... nothingness...

Did I seriously just say philosophy doesn't have its own context? My bad... I guess I was tripping for a second...
Look, all I said was that you gotta keep your mind free from any kind of agenda or bias... just let the thoughts flow without all that extra baggage...

For what? And what's your guarantee that you aren't just being biased or acting out of pure prejudice here? Like, how do we know you haven't just been holding this back until now? Honestly, do you even think motivation matters at all? I used to be a total behaviorist about it—thought it didn't matter—but man, motivation defines your whole path... If your only drive is just running away from a brutal reality, then you're just using these abstract little worlds as a buffer zone. You see it all the time in cults, and honestly, you see it just as much with those academic philosophy circles... If your motivation is actually finding a solution or finally facing reality head-on to make peace with it, then yeah, that's cool. That's something that actually optimizes the flow of thought instead of just being total mental chaos and mess like most religious or philosophical nonsense...

Look, when people start acting all high and mighty trying to philosophize about how society should work, they need to get real... if you actually go through with the whole "building a utopia" thing, you're doomed. It’s impossible. You try to fix one thing, and you end up forcing a dozen new injustices just to make it work, which just creates a whole new cycle of bullshit... and it never ends...

So what the hell is he even doing then? Like, does he even have the balls to stop and ask himself why he’s doing this in the first place? Seriously... He'd be better off just going to work at a local farm or something. At least that actually makes sense...

Is this just a total lack of context and people just throwing around random phrases to sound smart...?

This is just some absolute bullshit. Let’s play a little game here, shall we? Let’s pretend we actually care about being "eloquent" and sophisticated. Whatever. Look, every path you take isn't always a walk in the park. Sometimes, things get damn hard. But that pseudo-intellectual garbage you keep pushing? That's easy. It's easy because it leads absolutely nowhere. It’s a dead end, a total waste of time. I'm talking basic physics here—energy conservation. You want results? Then you gotta pay the price. No pain, no gain... period.

Bradley Fisher20 Active Member

142 messages
joined May 2005

#20 · Oct 13, 2006

Druid said:Philosophy hasn't really been my go-to tool for organizing thoughts. I mean, we've had brains and ways to use them since we basically became self-aware... If you want to organize thoughts, you use mnemonics, or stuff like those Tree of Life tarot decks and things like that. Maybe you meant more like clarifying concepts or judgments? For me, philosophy—among other things—is more about questioning stuff that seems totally obvious and self-explanatory...

Sorting = Clarifying

Philosophy as a way to question things that seem "obvious"? Man, you can just use simple questions for that. Or maybe I just totally missed your point. Can you explain that part better?

You must log in or register to reply here.