Insult Yourself and Get Nasty

[Edwardo Piet]

You arse-headed turtle-throttling shit for brains son of a bastard of a cock nipper. You wouldn't know reality if it slapped you in the face as hard and as often as your sad and lonely pathetic self wished it could slap some ass. You spend all your years contributing absolutely nothing save the blisters on your palms and the incessant repetitive ramblings of your twatwaffling. You think you're smart but you're not as smart as you think you are, you have zero evidence of any education to show for it and you're about as mentally stable as the owner of Drop Dead Fred's saturated green underpants.

[Aoi Magi]

*** ** ****** *****, *** ** *** ** ***** ** * *** ***** ***********.
***** ** ***** ** *****!

[Edwardo Piet]

OH MY GOD MAGI WE CAN'T POSSIBLY DO THAT!

Who would clear up the mess?

[emjay]

I didn't even finish my philosophy course...

Generally, philosophy is an overrated and esoteric mental excessive with the occasional joy of engaging in a little verbal jousting. If you don't take it with a grain of salt or yourself too seriously it adds a little spice to life. Kind of like beer snobbery,...its still just beer.

Yeah, I hear ya. Philosophy is all about asking questions, but whether those questions are useful or even valid is another matter entirely... ie it's about trying to find the right questions. By taking a simple thing and breaking it down into the sum of its parts (or trying to) it's always possible that it's a red herring that lands you in a quagmire of abstractions and new definitions that has little bearing on the essence of whatever you started with (and that would be the part that makes it esoteric). And if something leads to paradoxes then it's possible that it wasn't the right question to begin with. So philosophy is a mindfield really... one where it's always possible to 'not see the forest for the trees' (but always hoping that you can ). The same things can be said of Psychology, at least in my reductionistic approach to it, but unfortunately it goes hand in hand with an overanalytical mind. At the end of the day sometimes I wish I didn't 'meta analyse' everything, because it can be detrimental to just living in the moment, but it's just my nature and not something I can easily dial back.

---

*** ** ****** *****, *** ** *** ** ***** ** * *** ***** ***********.
***** ** ***** ** *****!

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure it will clear up in due course.

[Edwardo Piet]

WE CAN'T POSSIBLY DO THAT!

Who would clear up the mess?

May need to turn your sound up butttttt:

[vulcanlogician]

Generally, philosophy is an overrated and esoteric mental excessive with the occasional joy of engaging in a little verbal jousting. If you don't take it with a grain of salt or yourself too seriously it adds a little spice to life. Kind of like beer snobbery,...its still just beer.

I'd have to agree, especially since you qualified your statement with "generally." Most philosophizing that goes on in these forums (including my own contributions) often amounts to little more than listing flavor notes of Trappistes Rochefort 10. But I have to say, if I employ bad logic and somebody calls me on it, that's a learning experience. Even when done in the context of an online forum, it can help keep the mind sharp.

However, in the grand scheme, philosophy has been rather important (if not integral) to cultural development. I also think that philosophy should be taught in high school-- at the very least a "critical thinking" course. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that college curricula ought to make Phil 101, intro to ethics, and intro to logic mandatory for all students, regardless of major. The value in logic speaks for itself, but if everyone had an ethics course under their belts, this actually might improve things at the societal level.

So, yeah, take philosophical musings with a grain of salt. But I also like to think there is value in philosophy beyond our own enjoyment of it.

[LastPoet]

Pompous ass does not even begin to describe the pretentious douce-baggery  you spread across AF threads like dank spunck on a teenager’s bedsheets. Swedenborg? He's just the theological roach coach from which you serve the pretentious symbolism you dish out to avoid getting ass-raped by the ignorant cosmology of ancient Hebrew goat fuckers. Thip…thip…thip…hear that douche, that’s the sound of the 5-Ways stuck in the metal groove of the like 3 and half neurons it takes you to peel apart the jiz-glued pages of your Aquinas Cliff-Notes. Your hapless medieval hero-worship apologetics are about as worthless as a hooker with a gag reflex. That farcical debate victory over a cock-leper plagiarist was about as impressive as a state fair hot-dog eating champ cleaning up an anal creampie.

I do not feel you were honest about your self deprecating humour. Meh, buzzkiller.

[emjay]

Generally, philosophy is an overrated and esoteric mental excessive with the occasional joy of engaging in a little verbal jousting. If you don't take it with a grain of salt or yourself too seriously it adds a little spice to life. Kind of like beer snobbery,...its still just beer.

I'd have to agree, especially since you qualified your statement with "generally." Most philosophizing that goes on in these forums (including my own contributions) often amounts to little more than listing flavor notes of Trappistes Rochefort 10. But I have to say, if I employ bad logic and somebody calls me on it, that's a learning experience. Even when done in the context of an online forum, it can help keep the mind sharp.

However, in the grand scheme, philosophy has been rather important (if not integral) to cultural development. I also think that philosophy should be taught in high school-- at the very least a "critical thinking" course. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that college curricula ought to make Phil 101, intro to ethics, and intro to logic mandatory for all students, regardless of major. The value in logic speaks for itself, but if everyone had an ethics course under their belts, this actually might improve things at the societal level.

So, yeah, take philosophical musings with a grain of salt. But I also like to think there is value in philosophy beyond our own enjoyment of it.

Just to say vulcan, in case you took it otherwise, my reply to Neo was not disparaging philosophy, just pointing out some of its dangers... pointing out that it's not straightforward and prone to red herrings... especially in the realms of metaphysics etc... if it were straightforward, people wouldn't have been arguing the same questions since the dawn of time. I love philosophy and it wasn't for lack of interest why I didn't finish that course, just difficulty learning.

[vulcanlogician]

I'd have to agree, especially since you qualified your statement with "generally." Most philosophizing that goes on in these forums (including my own contributions) often amounts to little more than listing flavor notes of Trappistes Rochefort 10. But I have to say, if I employ bad logic and somebody calls me on it, that's a learning experience. Even when done in the context of an online forum, it can help keep the mind sharp.

However, in the grand scheme, philosophy has been rather important (if not integral) to cultural development. I also think that philosophy should be taught in high school-- at the very least a "critical thinking" course. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that college curricula ought to make Phil 101, intro to ethics, and intro to logic mandatory for all students, regardless of major. The value in logic speaks for itself, but if everyone had an ethics course under their belts, this actually might improve things at the societal level.

So, yeah, take philosophical musings with a grain of salt. But I also like to think there is value in philosophy beyond our own enjoyment of it.

Just to say vulcan, in case you took it otherwise, my reply to Neo was not disparaging philosophy, just pointing out some of its dangers... pointing out that it's not straightforward and prone to red herrings... especially in the realms of metaphysics etc... if it were straightforward, people wouldn't have been arguing the same questions since the dawn of time. I love philosophy and it wasn't for lack of interest why I didn't finish that course, just difficulty learning.

I didn't take it the wrong way. I agree with what you said for the most part. And you make a really good point about metaphysical inquiries. William James said much the same thing about metaphysics. I've enclosed a bit of his writing concerning the matter if you're interested. I think he makes a valid point, and one that lines up with your assessment.

---

Some years ago, being with a camping party in the mountains, I returned from a solitary ramble to find everyone engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel—a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of a tree-trunk; while over against the tree's opposite side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly round the tree, but no matter how fast he goes, the squirrel moves as fast in the opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse of him is caught. The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: DOES THE MAN GO ROUND THE SQUIRREL OR NOT? He goes round the tree, sure enough, and the squirrel is on the tree; but does he go round the squirrel? In the unlimited leisure of the wilderness, discussion had been worn threadbare. Everyone had taken sides, and was obstinate; and the numbers on both sides were even. Each side, when I appeared, therefore appealed to me to make it a majority. Mindful of the scholastic adage that whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a distinction, I immediately sought and found one, as follows: "Which party is right," I said, "depends on what you PRACTICALLY MEAN by 'going round' the squirrel. If you mean passing from the north of him to the east, then to the south, then to the west, and then to the north of him again, obviously the man does go round him, for he occupies these successive positions. But if on the contrary you mean being first in front of him, then on the right of him, then behind him, then on his left, and finally in front again, it is quite as obvious that the man fails to go round him, for by the compensating movements the squirrel makes, he keeps his belly turned towards the man all the time, and his back turned away. Make the distinction, and there is no occasion for any farther dispute. You are both right and both wrong according as you conceive the verb 'to go round' in one practical fashion or the other."

---

[emjay]

Just to say vulcan, in case you took it otherwise, my reply to Neo was not disparaging philosophy, just pointing out some of its dangers... pointing out that it's not straightforward and prone to red herrings... especially in the realms of metaphysics etc... if it were straightforward, people wouldn't have been arguing the same questions since the dawn of time. I love philosophy and it wasn't for lack of interest why I didn't finish that course, just difficulty learning.

I didn't take it the wrong way. I agree with what you said for the most part. And you make a really good point about metaphysical inquiries. William James said much the same thing about metaphysics. I've enclosed a bit of his writing concerning the matter if you're interested. I think he makes a valid point, and one that lines up with your assessment.

---

Some years ago, being with a camping party in the mountains, I returned from a solitary ramble to find everyone engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel—a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of a tree-trunk; while over against the tree's opposite side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly round the tree, but no matter how fast he goes, the squirrel moves as fast in the opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse of him is caught. The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: DOES THE MAN GO ROUND THE SQUIRREL OR NOT? He goes round the tree, sure enough, and the squirrel is on the tree; but does he go round the squirrel? In the unlimited leisure of the wilderness, discussion had been worn threadbare. Everyone had taken sides, and was obstinate; and the numbers on both sides were even. Each side, when I appeared, therefore appealed to me to make it a majority. Mindful of the scholastic adage that whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a distinction, I immediately sought and found one, as follows: "Which party is right," I said, "depends on what you PRACTICALLY MEAN by 'going round' the squirrel. If you mean passing from the north of him to the east, then to the south, then to the west, and then to the north of him again, obviously the man does go round him, for he occupies these successive positions. But if on the contrary you mean being first in front of him, then on the right of him, then behind him, then on his left, and finally in front again, it is quite as obvious that the man fails to go round him, for by the compensating movements the squirrel makes, he keeps his belly turned towards the man all the time, and his back turned away. Make the distinction, and there is no occasion for any farther dispute. You are both right and both wrong according as you conceive the verb 'to go round' in one practical fashion or the other."

---

Yeah, that's interesting... and part of what I was meaning... and one of the things that appeals to me about Neo's 'Scholastic' way of thought... in that he said once, I think, that it always tries to be clear in its definitions to avoid those sorts of semantic disputes. But I'd argue though that the problem with philosophy extends to the fact that it's also possible to have 'semantic misunderstandings' on your own... so it's not just in arguing with someone else but in your own thinking alone. So though it doesn't apply to that squirrel thing, it would be at least hypothetically possible that neither side could be declared right in some particular debate because both sides have a semantic misunderstanding and the real meaning eludes them both.

ETA: I don't think I've put that very well... they're not semantic disputes/misunderstandings in the sense that they're arguing about meaning, but it is different meanings that cause the disputes in the case of arguments with others, and misunderstandings/paradoxes/dead ends etc in the case of your own thinking. Sorry about that... hope that clarifies what I mean.