Moderator: Only_Humean
Guide wrote:[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.
Guide wrote:Art-world references (or theater, as it were) won't improve the status of the stranger enemy with respect to genuine philosophy.
"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."
<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 wrote:[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.
Guide wrote:After all, it implies the group could never say anything worthy, since all must be already understood or a mere "posturing".
Guide wrote:The group takes note of this negative view of the group...
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.
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.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.
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.
Guide wrote: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 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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users