Ecmandu's No Fool

and to paraphrase iambiguous, this is a debate in irony, but it also has a point… it depends where Uccisore will take this.

My estimation, if that if you were half as smart as you claim to be by the nature of your OP, in having read this whole thread, you’d throw in the towel and let me stay on the boards, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you’re not as smart as your OP deems you to be (remember you’re the smart one here)… and you will continue this to look more and more the less wise and intelligent. Read the whole thread and think about it.

And Carleas, I want my thread moved from rant to philosophy if I win this debate or it’s a draw. I’m assuming it’s Uccisore who moved it there, though I could be wrong, but I see nothing rantful about that thread, especially in the context of this debate.

I socialize on Wednesdays, so I won’t be writing reply after reply. May only be one or two for the next day or so.

Ecmandu, your impression of the conditions of this debate, the stakes of the debate, and the circumstances that led you to be having this debate is not a part of the debate. So I’m skipping every single thing you wrote about that. Let’s see what you actually have of substance remaining to reply to.

Here will be my fourth time refuting this, a refutation you have ignored every time:

  Your contribution to philosophy is through counter example. You serve as an example of how not to do philosophy.  I know your arguments aren't new.  They aren't new on the 'macrocosmic' or on the 'microcosmic' level.  The greatest, most original idea you ever claimed to have was simply ripped off from[i] Brave New World[/i].  I never claimed you were making original arguments in this debate, and the originality of your arguments has  nothing to do with the contribution I allege you make to philosophy. People may gain something worthwhile from reading your works,[i] gain an insight in how not to do philosophy, regardless of how unoriginal you are[/i]. 
    First of all, you haven't demonstrated this, you've merely claimed it.  So I'll expand my refutation which you still haven't addressed.  The great thinkers of the world:  Isaac Newton, Einstein, Tesla, Aristotle,  daVinci, etc.  A lot of them were polymaths: they demonstrated an uncanny ability to master any field they put themselves too.   Nobody calls these people 'idiots' because they never learned how to repair a broken cotton gin or speak Boontling.  We respect their intelligence because, through what they [i]did[/i] do, we can see that they would have mastered anything they put their minds to.  Similarly, the world contains dullards- people who, through genetics or injury or who-knows-what, are simply dumb.  They aren't going to master anything, as we understand mastery.  They simply can't think clearly enough about anything to do that.  They may be able to get one trade down well enough to earn an income. Maybe not even that. Maybe the one thing they do better than anything else is something they are still mediocre at compared to everyone else in the room.   These are the people we call fools, idiots, stupid, etc. (perhaps only when being mean).   

I maintain there is insufficient evidence to classify you as one of these- a fool. Do you disagree or not?

Clear evidence that you’re intelligent enough to be a troll as opposed to a fool.

Everything else you wrote, including the three followup replies, contains nothing of substance for the debate.

For one, I’m sure there are certain tribes in the northern kalahari desert that would think all your luminaries are morons, idiots and worse. And you keep avoiding the debate, like someone unwiser than me and less intelligent than me, that you are arguing specifics when the perameters of your debate was about general philosophical contributions and general idiocy. I can be more intelligent than you and wiser than you and still have made no philosophic contribution and be a fool by your definition. You see we’re mirroring each other… you think you’re pretty clever, and this is not off topic for the debate, by setting me up for a situation where if I win or lose the votes I get banned, and then you set it up so you can ridicule me as having made a contribution to philosophy. But you and I and everyone on these boards already knew you needed a HUGE handicap, so we gave you all the cards to hold.

The brave new world does not state that the stratification of motivational system causes increased stress, depression, apathy and agitation in human populations and that this is a cosmic law that neither can be created or destroyed by any hypothetical being. I don’t have to argue that this idea is new, to argue that I am wiser than you, even though I’m the first person on earth to formulate it.

I disagree, and I’d like to see you prove the above, considering you don’t know who all my luminaries are.
The rest of your post was presented nothing of substance to the debate.

I asked you a question, Ecmandu, and you didn’t answer. I will repeat it as it is key to the debate:

The world contains fools- people who, through genetics or injury or who-knows-what, are simply dumb. They aren’t going to master anything, as we understand mastery […] Maybe the one thing they do better than anything else is something they are still mediocre at compared to everyone else in the room. These are the people we call fools, idiots, stupid, etc. (perhaps only when being mean).

I maintain there is insufficient evidence to classify you as one of these- a fool. Do you disagree or not?

I was referring to the list of luminaries you provided. They would die if they were sent alone into the kalahari desert, and they have probably helped destroy the world.

By your definition there is only one fool. So you’re arguing that I’m the only fool in the world, and that I’m the only example of what not to do in philosophy. You see, you decided you’re going to set this debate up so you can ridicule me and say I contributed to philosophy… classic Uccisore. So I set the debate up that I can be more intelligent and wise than you and still win the debate. That’s where we are. You haven’t addressed my points about philosophy in general (which is what you stipulated in your own wording) because you haven’t touched the infinity argument, and when you do, you will lose.

More unproven assertions.

Not even close to true. I see you refuse to answer a simply put, straightforward question. Unless you actually have an argument to make, I think I’m done for the day- all my points stand concisely stated, often repeated, and unaddressed by you, so I have absolutely no problem letting the clock run.

Speaking of, how is the debate being judged? I think Carleas ought to do it, since he hosted it and hasn’t given a public opinion on it. Are you alright with that?

Sure. He’s the “executive director” of the boards, and considering the nature of the stakes, that is the most appropriate choice.

Do me a favor Uccisore, remember, I’m a fool (and phyllo is right, and I was right about how you were trying to define fool… I said it before phyllo, so I didn’t get help from discussions) I want you to state all of these points, as non-verbose as possible.

Actually, unless uccisore posts his points in a non-verbose manner (and he has the advantage of this entire page now which he didn’t have before), I will consider that Uccisore conceded the debate.

Uccisore wrote: “You didn’t cite your ‘factoids’ about Einstein or Ghandi, and I’m not concerning myself with them until you do.”

Actually another thing that’s not well known about Ghandi quotes is that he says, “I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian etc… AND I am an atheist.”

The quote in question was when Ghandi said, " I thank God for not giving me Einstiens brain" He was VERY anti-nuclear ANYTHING, and he spoke out the rest of his life about it. Unfortunatly for him, India got nukes.

Just one more comment before Uccisore replies… take your time, let it stew, formulate, I don’t want a half-assed Uccisore argument. Go back and concisely, you can even do it in numbered list form, all the he arguments you’ve made. You have the advantage of a pages worth of posts to do this, and I suggest you use it to your advantage. Then I will reply to EVERY one.

My points are already concisely presented, multiple times. You have all the opportunity you need to reply to them. I have nothing to gain by writing what is already there for you to read over again.

If there is something specifically I wrote that you find unclearly expressed and you need me to explain it in more detail, then say so and I will. Otherwise, if you can’t or won’t reply to my arguments as written, we’ll see what happens tomorrow.

That was lame Uccisore. I’d have done it for you in Bullet Points. In my mind, you conceded the debate. You obviously aren’t that passionate about this.

You haven’t demonstrated that we aren’t all fools in one way or another, which I think is obvious to anyone reading this thread, that in one way or another we are all fools.

Someone may know carpentry really well, but not electrical engineering, someone may know how to survive in the kalahari desert, almost everyone in the world would die there very soon.
Polymath as it’s limits because as I said before, there is a stratification of intellect, this isn’t just an assertion, some people are nice, others are grumps, this is everyones life experience. So yes, since we are all fools in one way or another, I am a fool as well. What I saw was a feeble attempt at trying to refute this obvious point that we all know. My other point, was that given that we are all fools in one way or another, we also have specializations… my specialization is being better at debate than you, while still allowing me to be a fool. This is why i won’t get banned for winning the debate.

You haven’t really touched upon the philosophy section, because you never talked about the infinity problem, and the way you set the debate up, was the general sense of contributing to philosophy, not the specific sense… by this I mean, has ANYONE contributed to philosophy when you can show that there are an infinite number of regressive souls? The answer is “no”. Since they cannot contribute to philosophy, they certainly cannot contribute something worthwhile to philosophy.

And, thus, you are refuted on both points. Oh, and thanks a lot Peter :exclamation:

Read my last post, it’s my debate finisher: This would have been an edit, but not everyone reads those.

Uccisore I think you’re mad at me because I found a loophole to not get banned, and I also think you’re mad at me for using the same technique as you in the context of that loophole. I get to outdebate you as a fool, and you get to make fun of me as a non-fool. So we’re even, In every respect except one. I don’t think you won the debate.

Ecmandu has declared that post to be his debate finisher. I have no expectation that he’ll actually keep his word in that regard, but here are my tentative closing remarks.

 First of all, it should be said that Ecmandu's point about specialization works against him.  He has said repeatedly that as we all have our limitations, we all have our specializations as well, and then he's gone on to describe his.  If Ecmandu is right and we all have specializations to go along with our limitations, one could just as easily say [i]that nobody is a fool[/i], including Ecmandu.  The vision he paints of a world in which we are all on par because we're all good at some things and bad at others is a world in which we're all uniquely gifted. To take from this 'we're all fools' would be arbitrary cynicism, or in this case, a hollow attempt to win a debate through twisting rhetoric instead of actually making a point. Now, I think Ecmandu's portrayl is fundamentally flawed and  I will show why, but it's important to note that even if you accept his description of human intellect, his argument undercuts his position. What he's shown is not that we're all fools, but that the distinction between fool and non-fool can't be made, and so the term has no meaning at all. 

  But enough of that. Let me show why his portrayl of human intellect and foolishness is wrong, not just undercutting of his position. 

 Imagine Leonardo da Vinci is put into a position of having to shoe a horse.  He's never done this before, and has been provided no guidance.  A farmer, and a friend of his watch as he flouders, almost gets kicked in the face.  Perhaps he uses the wrong kind of nail.  Hell, perhaps he's unaware that nails are even required.  All in all, he makes a mess of things.   
 Says the farmer:  "This man is clearly a fool."
 Says Leonardo's friend: "Actually, that's Leonardo da Vinci, the accomplished painter, architecht, inventor, sculptor, engineer, mathematician, biologist and cartographer."

 If the farmer believes da Vinci's friend, he will of course [i]immediately realize his error.[/i]  Why? Two reasons.  For one, he can remember his own first time shoeing a horse, and would know immediately how difficult it would be if one wasn't given any guidance.  For two, he knows that a person with all those accomplishments is no fool. There's simply no comparison between being a stupid, idiotic person (as 'fool' has been defined for the purposes of this debate), and finding oneself in a situation in which they have no expertise. And indeed, even in the above situation we'd expect da Vinci to figure out for himself how to shoe a horse faster than some other, random person put in a similar situation because daVinci is a genius, [i]and some people merely figure out new things faster than others.[/i]  That's an aspect of foolishness Ecmandu completely ignores- it's not just a question of what you do and don't know, it's a question of how quickly you can come to learn something new if you must. 

  With this understanding, Ecmandu's point works against him in another, more important way.  What we know about Ecmandu is that he's hideously bad at debate, reading comprehension, and philosophy.  And even then, what do we really know?  The evidence is circumstantial- it's always possible that he's faking his incompetence in order to troll, or to teach some greater lesson. For all you truly know, I'm Ecmandu, and I'm playing some great public game with myself.  But let's put that aside, and take his behavior at face value.  What we see of him here doesn't make him a fool any more than da Vinci for being unable to shoe a horse. Ecmandu may be a whiz with numbers who simply can't express himself- indeed he has claimed this.  Perhaps if only you saw him dance, or paint, or sew a wound, or fix a car, you would be stunned by his acumen. He could be knowledgeable and talented about a great many things, and average at a great many more.  All the evidence we have of Ecmandu's 'foolishness' shows only that he is [i]incompetant[/i] at a particular narrow skillset- the skillset required to argue about philosophy on the internet.  That certainly doesn't meet the definition of "Fool" I set in this debate.  And however the reader or this debate may define "fool", I highly doubt "being bad at one thing" qualifies.  There is simply not enough information to conclude "This man is a fool".   


   As far as I can tell, Ecmandu hasn't attempted to address my point about his contribution to philosophy, so this section will be shorter, and basically a repeat of what I've said elsewhere.  I maintain that Ecmandu has a worthwhile contribution to philosophy to make by being a bad example of it. He illustrates quite well how inattention to detail, poor writing skills based in a lack of education, stubbornness, and presumption of one's own expertise where it does not exist can lead to bad results.  Reading his words can serve as a 'come to Jesus' moment for similar armchair philosophers with a tendency to spout off without having done their homework. In fact, I have good reason to believe that [i]this has actually occured.[/i]  The only argument Ecmandu has given about his lack of contribution to philosophy has been that, if there have been an infinite number of souls, then everything has been said before, and thus his contribution cannot possibly be original.  This fails in three fundamental ways. 
  First, he's given us no reason to believe that there actually have been an infinite number of souls in the past, much less souls capable of making philosophical statements. He hasn't even bothered to say what a soul is. One simply has to take it for granted that there have been an infinite number of monkeys typing on keyboards in order for his argument to even get off the ground. Considering this goes against mainstream physics which asserts the universe had a beginning a finite amount of time in the past, the fact that he has no argument for his position is an astounding gaff for a debate such as this. 
  Second, even if there have been an infinite number of souls spouting philosophy, those souls are still unique. Ecmandu as a male homo sapiens living in the 21st century saying what he says has different and unique implications to the Lobster Queen of Betelguese IV saying the same thing 75 million years ago.  Questions of "Why now? Why him? Why not somebody else?  How else might Ecmandu resemble the Great Lobster Matriarchs of old?" will have answers raised only by Ecmandu's unique utterances, and those answers may themselves be a unique contribution to philosophy. 
 Third, and most importantly, the uniqueness of Ecmandu's philosophical ideas has[i] nothing at all to do[/i] with the contribution to philosophy I allege that he has made. He made his "nobody has said anything unique" argument before I wrote my first post in this debate, and has simply stuck to it without seeming to acknowledge it's irrelevance to my position.  He thinks he is concerned with the "macrocosmic" scale, and I with the "microcosmic" scale, as he calls them. But even if he's contributed no unique [i]philosophical ideas[/i] to the universe in either sense- even if it is as he appears that his greatest idea was accidentally lifted from [i]Brave New World[/i]-, that doesn't detract from my position at all. In fact, it makes my position stronger- one of the ways in which Ecmandu's philosophical endeavors serves as a warning to the rest of us is in what can happen when you claim to have an original idea when you haven't done the background reading first. 

So in conclusion (unless and until Ec goes back on his word and writes a new ‘debate finisher’), Ecmandu’s depiction of foolishness renders the word meaningless as opposed to showing that we are all fools. In reality, a person is not a fool merely because they lack a specialization. Ecmandu can’t be concluded to be a fool because all we know about him is that he lacks one particular skillset. Ecmandu makes a worthwhile contribution to philosophy by demonstrating how it ought not be done. His argument about originality on a universal scale doesn’t address this in any way, is inadequately supported, and doesn’t entail his conclusions.

Debate finisher and last post are two different things Uccisore. But you actually did address point here, I must commend you for that. Do you really believe that Leonardo DaVinci could learn to shoe a horse faster than anyone ever born? Even a “retard” can learn to shoe a horse. So my point stands, relative to others, we are all idiots to one degree or another. An idiot savant could probably do it perfectly the first time. If the farmer realized his error, that farmer, not having had exposure to my debate, would be in error, and he would quickly see his error. In order for someone to be a fool by your definition, they have to be incapable of being talented at anything… retards are talented at being retarded!!! More talented than anyone in the world in fact. People trying to act retarded, never quite get it right.

I’ll just say a soul is a thinking being that can comprehend this discussion in an infinite number of languages for the narrow sake of this debate, since we are talking about two humans here.

As I said in my OP, if there are not an infinite number of souls retroactively, than something must have come from nothing at all at some point, I even demonstrated that a hypothetical creator cannot be a perfect polymath in my OP, by talking about counting the natural numbers and existents. If it did come from nothing at all, than you are still hosed in this debate, because that means that it wasn’t OUR contribution. But let’s assume you believe in some super-creator… this super creator would have known everything philosophically, and relative to it, none of us would have original ideas philosophical ideas, and without the originality, you lose the worwhileness, and all of us would be fools relative to this being. So either way you cut it, you lose your debate.
Not because I’m a fool, but to demonstrate that we are all fools. However, in the context of our universal foolishness, we have specializations, and my specialization is being a better debater than Uccisore. But I’m still a fool who has contributed nothing worthwhile to philosophy.

Probably not, and neither did I say anything vaguely like that.

Not at all. They merely have to be ‘a stupid, idiotic person’. Such a person may have talents. We would just expect them to have fewer talents, or for the talents they possess to not require great intelligence, or for them to take longer to gain those talents than it would take other people. Again, all things that can’t be demonstrated of you one way or the other.

Even if that wasn’t asinine in the extreme, it wouldn’t counter my point. That would just be an example of the kind of ‘talent’ a fool can possess. There are others that they probably can’t, or would be more difficult for them. What the above really does is make my point all the stronger- if your position entails things like ‘being retarded is a talent’, you really are making the term ‘fool’ meaningless as opposed to arguing that you are one.

I only know one language. Am I not a soul then?  I figured there would at least be some finite number of souls based on your definition, but as you define it above, I'd go so far as to say souls don't exist. A being that can comprehend an infinite number of languages? As an atheist can you give me an example of even one of these?

This is obviously false. If there aren’t an infinite number of souls, all that shows is that the first soul came from something previous that wasn’t a soul. You may as well argue that there are an infinite number of goats, or spoons. Anyway, I’ve demonstrated why this is irrelevant in two different ways, and you haven’t touched those positions at all, so it hardly matters.