Exsiting

[Guide]

[Those with no respect for philosophy are kindly requested not to interfere with the group, and this thread.]

Unlike most persons, some persons in the group know that they exist. These are the serious ones. The rest have no respect for discussion. They don't know that they exist; they are the thoughtless cargo of the heritage.

[Meno_]

[Those with no respect for philosophy are kindly requested not to interfere with the group, and this thread.]

Unlike most persons, some persons in the group know that they exist. These are the serious ones. The rest have no respect for discussion. They don't know that they exist; they are the thoughtless cargo of the heritage.

Oh, I'd like to surprise You!

[Pneumatic-Coma]

peek-a-boo lol

[Guide]

Art-world references (or theater, as it were) won't improve the status of the stranger enemy with respect to genuine philosophy.

[Meno_]

Art-world references (or theater, as it were) won't improve the status of the stranger enemy with respect to genuine philosophy.

Ok ? Menos/Xenos :- one who thinks for himself (menos) and one who is a member of a supposed incrowd ok(Xenos) either / or ?
But is that the solution ? I don't think so. There are much more not understood membership requirements , whom are believed to have a mutual membership. They are free, not bound.

Even if. Whatever. And besides who is the judge and jury. and who makes these pronouncements.

Besides, old world art may have something to do with it. Again what brings forth these, like it was some judgment of Paris?

But run, Melos! -to Demos.

This is the last post on making into anything this writer does, not out of concern for myself, but for whomever may read offensive comments, which has never been my intention or style.

My opinion is, that there is no end to what some writers will do to gain attention, even at the price of baiting for controversy.

Guide , if I offended You im sorry, but remember who started with offensive ad-hominem, even if, as your opinion makes it clear, it makes for "good philosophy"

[Guide]

“offensive ad-hominem”

This shows a thoughtless reception of the current authority. In all authority there is something stupid, worse than an animal. One says “ad hominem” but doesn't understand why. Because one doesn’t understand it is all the more obdurate. When one is able to think about what one is saying, having said it because on brought it forward from one’s own resources, one is able to give reasons, and is less stupid. This is one symptom of the stupidity of a part of the group, that which uses the phrase “ad hominem”.


“Besides, old world art may have something to do with it. Again what brings forth these, like it was some judgment of Paris?”


The diabolic swine, frighted with the most spiritual of plonk wines, only then, would the gifted ones learn thinking.

71
Too much and too little wine. Give him none, he cannot find truth; give him too much: similarly.

Pascal, Pensees

Trop et trop peu de vin. Ne lui en donnez pas : il ne peut trouver la vérité. Donnez-lui en trop : de même.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Guide is correct, it was not an ad hom. It was merely an insult.
That said the OP is not the opening of a philosophy discussion. Whatever it is belongs in some other forum.

[Guide]

"Guide is correct, it was not an ad hom. It was merely an insult.
That said the OP is not the opening of a philosophy discussion. Whatever it is belongs in some other forum."

The group takes note of this negative view of the group, concerning genuine philosophic investigation. This seems to stem from a dumb prefigured academic mania, profoundly adolescent and destructive of living philosophy in every respect. The group regards this as a sort of disease, that of thoughtlessness which take orders from the fraught train of the heritage. It is as though, philosophy itself had become what tit what meant to set aside. Blind and prompt obedience to old habits.

[Silhouette]

<Oh how I simultaneously wish I could live up to this imposing man's words yet also I yearn to rebel for he taunts me so!>

Get lost, Guide. Content or nothing. No posturing.

[Guide]

<Oh how I simultaneously wish I could live up to this imposing man's words yet also I yearn to rebel for he taunts me so!>

Get lost, Guide. Content or nothing. No posturing.

The group finds this comment, of the group, very shallow and thoughtless. After all, it implies the group could never say anything worthy, since all must be already understood or a mere "posturing". A stupid idea, discredited by anyone who has ever learned anything and reflects on what learning is. Besides, it also implies an idiot authority at work in the group's answer, i.e., that the objection doesn't understand itself, but relies on, some celebrity or teacher: ergo, it is beyond reason and unreasonable.

[MagsJ]

[Those with no respect for philosophy are kindly requested not to interfere with the group, and this thread.]

Unlike most persons, some persons in the group know that they exist. These are the serious ones. The rest have no respect for discussion. They don't know that they exist; they are the thoughtless cargo of the heritage.

The group?

I concur on the matter of respect for Philosophy and for discussion, but people have been taught to bring argument to the table and not to discuss.. especially Americans,

Argument is part of, but should not be the entirety of, a philosophical discussion.

[Silhouette]

After all, it implies the group could never say anything worthy, since all must be already understood or a mere "posturing".

Does it?

Isn't that a rather shallow and thoughtless presumption? Ask yourself the question: could my response just as easily apply only to one thing you have said, such as the opening post of this incorrectly spelt thread?

It could? Well, that's convenient because that's all I intended.

If I was going to make generalisations about you, I'd now suspect you to be hostile and defensive to the point of irrationality, and with your intentionally bizarre style of speech: pretentious and self-important.

But I'm not going to assume, so feel free to prove my initial response wrong and dispel my suspicious, drop the posturing and create some actual content for this here thread of yours. Or prove me right and don't, up to you.

[MagsJ]

The group takes note of this negative view of the group...

[Guide]

After all, it implies the group could never say anything worthy, since all must be already understood or a mere "posturing".

Does it?

Isn't that a rather shallow and thoughtless presumption?

Any raising of the voice, or claim to something exceptional, can be construed as a foolish act. As a mere boast without corresponding substance. This is, of course, the basis for Aristophanes' Clouds.

Ask yourself the question: could my response just as easily apply only to one thing you have said, such as the opening post of this incorrectly spelt thread?

The group says concerning oneself with typos is unworthy and petty, even shameful, and reflects decidedly poorly on whoever would do it. It shows a lack of seriousness. It also wastes the group's time.

It could? Well, that's convenient because that's all I intended.

No. These relentlessly supercilious words of the group, the group repudiates. It never could; it is connected to, it points to, the group's motivation and peculiar bent.

If I was going to make generalisations about you, I'd now suspect you to be hostile and defensive to the point of irrationality, and with your intentionally bizarre style of speech: pretentious and self-important.

The group finds this embarrassingly petty; most adolescent is the group.

But I'm not going to assume, so feel free to prove my initial response wrong and dispel my suspicious, drop the posturing and create some actual content for this here thread of yours. Or prove me right and don't, up to you.

The group advises the group to cease from wasting time with cheep insults concerned with small-minded and thoughtless notions of appropriate style.

[Karpel Tunnel]

"Guide is correct, it was not an ad hom. It was merely an insult.
That said the OP is not the opening of a philosophy discussion. Whatever it is belongs in some other forum."

The group takes note of this negative view of the group, concerning genuine philosophic investigation. This seems to stem from a dumb prefigured academic mania, profoundly adolescent and destructive of living philosophy in every respect. The group regards this as a sort of disease, that of thoughtlessness which take orders from the fraught train of the heritage. It is as though, philosophy itself had become what tit what meant to set aside. Blind and prompt obedience to old habits.

The group is angry at academia. This is understandible. The group will rage, out loud, no words, until it can question again. It will know this rage has been soothed when the group finds itself focusing on specific questioning and not this or that portion of the group. It will find itself on one topic, then another, getting into the grit of questioning, moving in and out of abstraction, concrete to abstraction. Showing not telling.

The group may notice that the group becomes what it has rage at: it hates academia, but stays up in abstraction, just like academics.

Down from the pedestal harranging itself...
and taking on Chomsky
or the culture of distraction
or how far the obssession with surfaces has come in Western Culture (the I am what I present fashion)
or what digital media says AS AN AUTHORITY not through words, but through the structure of the medium and how implicitly changes the group
or....
the group will pick one then another
the group will fall in love with questioning
not some portion that wants to be seen as THE questioner
The group falls out of love with gurus and in love with the process

AND LOOK the group is ALREADY questioning....
sometimes well, sometimes not....the group can get better...
If the group has something to offer the group it can stop lecturing abstractly and question an authority
in some thread or a new thread
The group would be welcome
The group would be walking the talk
instead of talking the walk.
What a group! and the group has much to learn from the group.
The group can feel anticipation......

[Pedro I Rengel]

The group, um, CANNOT allow itself, anymore, to avoid pointing out the group's willful avoidance of philosophey.

Of philosophy.

In the case of the group, it gives MORE weight to the uh matter. At hand. And not less, as the group meekly suggests.

The group is still waiting for the part of the group that is simply protecting its pride from the actual tradition of philosophy with all these dialectic mannerisms to risk seeming foolish by exposing its understanding of the subject matter in a way that incorporates, even if in enmity, what great philosophers have said, rather than turning it into plastic lifeless objects, say, or just kicking and screaming.

[Pedro I Rengel]

The group urges self discipline, and reminds the group that this does not equal capitulation.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Perhaps, the group reflects, it is not so much what great philosophers have said as what they have thought.

In any case, what they have said is the marker.

[Fixed Cross]

Or where they have walked, in which bogs they nearly drowned - but they won't tell you that.

Where the road split under their feet and they just barely hung on to a root kind enough to allow them escape the plunge - what of this root? Where is it mentioned? Between epistemology and idealistic isomorphism? Between morality and the analytic circumspection of truth value? anywhere between the covers, or at least between the lines?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Perhaps simply in the warmth of life for life's sake.

[Pedro I Rengel]

What is life?

Life is what life does. Ne?

[Guide]

Guide wrote:
"Guide is correct, it was not an ad hom. It was merely an insult.
That said the OP is not the opening of a philosophy discussion. Whatever it is belongs in some other forum."

The group takes note of this negative view of the group, concerning genuine philosophic investigation. This seems to stem from a dumb prefigured academic mania, profoundly adolescent and destructive of living philosophy in every respect. The group regards this as a sort of disease, that of thoughtlessness which take orders from the fraught train of the heritage. It is as though, philosophy itself had become what tit what meant to set aside. Blind and prompt obedience to old habits.
The group is angry at academia. This is understandible. The group will rage, out loud, no words, until it can question again. It will know this rage has been soothed when the group finds itself focusing on specific questioning and not this or that portion of the group. It will find itself on one topic, then another, getting into the grit of questioning, moving in and out of abstraction, concrete to abstraction. Showing not telling.

This is a mistaken view on the part of the group. Rather as if one would imagine Edmond Husserl, a world class mathematician, found the mathematical physics decisively wanting because he was resentful of mathematicians. The group recommends an essentially more serious tact be taken up by the group, other than cheep and tasteless polemics. The group must confront the issues, rather than seek refuge in hopeful explanations concerning trivial personal accidental motives.

[Guide]

"The group, um, CANNOT allow itself, anymore, to avoid pointing out the group's willful avoidance of philosophey."

The group says: exacto! And this must be so even at the expense of the many: the reverence for the destroyed university and for the crippled fragments of thought to be found there amidst the raging thoughtlessness.

[Silhouette]

This "the group" thing is a boring gimmick. Speak properly.

I see you didn't opt to inject content into the thread either...

[Karpel Tunnel]

The group recommends an essentially more serious tact be taken up by the group, other than cheep and tasteless polemics. The group must confront the issues, rather than seek refuge in hopeful explanations concerning trivial personal accidental motives.

The group is finally accurately self-assessing.

The group takes note of this negative view of the group, concerning genuine philosophic investigation. This seems to stem from a dumb prefigured academic mania, profoundly adolescent and destructive of living philosophy in every respect. The group regards this as a sort of disease, that of thoughtlessness which take orders from the fraught train of the heritage. It is as though, philosophy itself had become what tit what meant to set aside. Blind and prompt obedience to old habits.