Deep ideas about life

[MURAI]

FUCK THE GOVERNMENT!

 

[Silver Incubus]

FUCK THE GOVERNMENT!

 

[Justin S.]

I don't know if anyone will answer or even read this as I have made similar inquiries in the past, but why are we still trying to think of such an ambiguous entity as "the corporation" or "the man" in terms of being singularly benevolent/malevolent/tied to any one motivating force? To me, such reductionistic thinking is a pitfall to which "Philosophers" such as ourselves owe our awareness and attention.

This understanding of complexity is one of the basic foundations of critical thought- A person who thinks in terms of simple forms and causistry is mired in perverted platonism.

I agree with you here, and seemingly often in general, that one primary goal of "philosophers" is to reflect thinking back upon itself.

 

[Justin S.]

What do you mean by "the problem here is entirely the messenger"? That sounds as if you are saying "the problem here is that it is so-and-so posting" regardless of the subject matter!

The messenger, in italics. I was not referring to a person in particular, but a method- the messenger: a mode in which one proclaims and presents information in a certain way. The problem is so-and-so posting in this fashion, not that so-and-so is posting. As stated before, this thread is focused on the condescending methodology of messengers of things-at-hand (the obvious), not this-or-that content or truth/falseness of which they speak.

Could you say where you have discussed "the relationship of the 'corporation' to man"? as I would like to read it.

I'm not sure why it should not be valid to give an example of a specific event if it helps to illustrate a point. Current affairs questions are frequent on this board - and are related to philosophy.

I dont often see current events being used as evidence supporting a more essential thinking- I see hot topics used as rhetoric/thread generators. This isnt "philosophy", its glorified gossip.

I wondered why it is that you don't seem to accept that there are (obvious) deliberate plots by governments and other organisations running the country, which are against the public welfare. (?)

Why is it unphilosophical to see malevolence, rather than benevolence in these structures? Should it be unacceptable to make such observations? How can one pontificate on aspects of society, for example, without having an understanding of the depths of corruption? And how can one convey to another how bad corruption can be, without recourse to example? All observations are relevant to understanding phenomena.

Im frustrated by your assumptions. Please terminate your line of thinking that runs from how I do not "accept" certain truths, etc. I havent even commented on the content of the assertions, but merely the assertion itself. See above on methodology.

I am not trying to be argumentative Justin S, because I am genuinely interested in your response. I hope that you will deem the issues I have raised worthy of replying to instead of dismissing it all as rubbish. No hard feelings okay?

I take issue with your gross misrepresentations of my thoughts due to your misunderstanding of my criticism and humor (here and in other threads).

I dont know how to say it more plainly: I dont want to talk "issues" with you, I wish to discuss more essential modes of being.

 

[Horus]

Justin S., I've finally come to the conclusion that you just don't like Norsemaiden.

 

[Demilich]

try harder, Ptah, there is a lot not to like about her and her strong opinions, but I believe Justin sticks mostly to the high road and takes aim at the misconceptions/attitudes themselves, not personal attacks.

Do you think I don't like her either?

 

[Horus]

I don't see what's not to like. I agree with alot of what she says. Never once in my life have I ever discredited everything a person says, just because I disagree with them on one thing.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Thanks Ptah.

I think perhaps it may have been intended that I should have laughed self-deprecatingly at the original post, rather than taking issue with it. But then again, that would be patronising.

Justin S, I can see that you don't really want to discuss at all - only to put down whatever I say. So your objections can be seen in light of this.

I'm sure I must have unintentionally offended you. For this I apologise. (That means you can stop blatently trying to offend me now in revenge.)

 

[Justin S.]

Justin S., I've finally come to the conclusion that you just don't like Norsemaiden.

I really dont hold a grudge against her, and its nice to see a young woman engaged in such pursuits.

However, I do disagree with her quite often.

I wish her nothing but the best.

 

[Justin S.]

I don't see what's not to like. I agree with alot of what she says. Never once in my life have I ever discredited everything a person says, just because I disagree with them on one thing.

Somebody give this guy teh prize!

 

[Justin S.]

I think perhaps it may have been intended that I should have laughed self-deprecatingly at the original post, rather than taking issue with it. But then again, that would be patronising.

Why the need for either response (self-deprecation/defensiveness)? Wouldnt simple reflection upon my intent and criticisms be enough?

Justin S, I can see that you don't really want to discuss at all - only to put down whatever I say. So your objections can be seen in light of this.

I told you want I wish to discuss, and what I will generally avoid. I very much want to engage honestly with other people- this is why I post here.

This thread, and my general humor/frustration as of late, is due to the profound lack of discourse on this board despite many efforts (and the pretense of its title). I am lashing out with absurdity because Ive lost patience reading it here everyday. The problem with this format of communication is that there is no accountability- tomorrow a new incarnation of the same flawed ideas and subject matter will appear regardless of the response and evaluation the first time. There is never a progression or understanding. If this is this case, we are left with a collection of hasty and redundant "opinions", and nothing more.

I'm sure I must have unintentionally offended you. For this I apologise. (That means you can stop blatently trying to offend me now in revenge.)

I cant say I feel offended by you, but I find it unacceptable to have someone put words in my mouth and represent my ideas incorrectly. You jumped to far reaching conclusions so hastily.

Norsemaiden, I dont desire to attack you on a "emotional" or total level (to speak out against what I dont know- you outside this forum), but to drive home how sternly critical I am of your thinking, as you represent it here. I took shots because I resent deflection and denial of essential matters.

And if I am truly honest, I must admit that I really pick up on seemingly minute or "simply" aesthetic details. For example, I think your screen name is ridiculous and obscene. The same goes for most posters here (what displays of arrogance!). I try not to let annoyances like this greatly affect discourse due to my concern for openness and civility, but It would be dishonest for me to claim I disassociate such critical thoughts from an essential understanding (while at the same time not extrapolating too much).

 

[Horus]

Why the need for either response (self-deprecation/defensiveness)? Wouldnt simple reflection upon my intent and criticisms be enough?

No, because you give no reasoning behind your criticism. You just say "No, you're wrong." And you don't say what's wrong about their argument. You just discredit it right away, and don't give any reasoning as to why they're wrong. Maybe if you gave examples of times when your argument holds true, like Norsemaiden has been doing, I'd respect your method of argument alittle more than I do, but you don't. In each argument, she has given links to articles, and websites n stuff that clearly explain the point she's trying to make. She also gives examples of current events or historical events that apply to her argument. That's why I find it so much easier to agree with her. She doesn't just say "You're wrong. Goodbye." Criticism means nothing if you don't explain yourself.

 

[Justin S.]

*sigh*

:Spin:

 

[Norsemaiden]

Justin S, you said:

"I told you want I wish to discuss, and what I will generally avoid. I very much want to engage honestly with other people- this is why I post here."

Are you saying that there should be no current affairs on the philosophy forum? That's a straight question, can you give me a straight answer.

Do you apply philosophy to your life or is it purely abstract to you? (This would make a good subject for a thread in itself IMO).

Philosophy should be alive, not a lot of useless gobbledegook. I think this is where we differ. I go for applied philosophy and you find applied philosophy offensive.

It's not the conspiracy side of things at all is it? Its just the practical application side that gets you. Am I right?

The fact that you can't give a straight answer to a straight question is evidence of the lack of the ability to apply ideas.

 

[Justin S.]

Justin S, you said:

Are you saying that there should be no current affairs on the philosophy forum? That's a straight question, can you give me a straight answer.

Do you apply philosophy to your life or is it purely abstract to you? (This would make a good subject for a thread in itself IMO).

Philosophy should be alive, not a lot of useless gobbledegook. I think this is where we differ. I go for applied philosophy and you find applied philosophy offensive.

It's not the conspiracy side of things at all is it? Its just the practical application side that gets you. Am I right?

The fact that you can't give a straight answer to a straight question is evidence of the lack of the ability to apply ideas.

How are you arriving at such ideas? You have it backwards.

If there is such a thing as "applied" or experienced thought, it is through a phenomenological approach, not incessant talk about generalized and abstracted "world events".

Philosophy is alive in experience and the radical grasping of ones existence, not in fantastical meta-histories. The prevalence of the latter sort of topics here does not bear witness to their practical, or applied effects- it displays the impotence and delusion of such grand systems.

If you would have read more carefully my thoughts on "metaphysics", you would be presented with a very real struggle against detached, compartmentalized, arbitrary, and fundamentally nihilistic thought.

I am only interested in "applied" thought, there is no other.

 

[Horus]

Define "Applied" thought.

 

[Mormagil]

that's on the same page as "ask him for his sources, that'll surely stump 'im" in the big book of internet arguing isn't it

keep up the good work justin

 

[speed]

Seriously guys (justin S, Norsemaiden), this is getting to be ridiculous. You've both proven your points eight or nine times. I hope one of you is comfortable enough to just let it go.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Was or is there even a purpose for this thread?

 

[Anvil]

Not anymore.

I love how philosophy is so based on point of views. Creates great debates.