Top Ten List

Thanks.

But, with 726,053 views to date, my music thread seems to be of most interest to folks here. And though my film thread has garnered only a mere 280,612 views to date, it’s the one that I am most proud of.

Oh, and I have my own reasons [embedded in dasein] for speculating on why ecmandu wants me to be banned from ILP. But they revolve considerably more around him than me. :wink:

Iambiguous, why don’t you respond to my proof post on abortion rather than the post that I said wasn’t a proof?

Context iambiguous: you don’t entertain it unless is is “self” (you don’t exist, remember?) serving.

Note to others:

Kindly explain to me what you think he means by this. That is, before he is successful in having me banned. :-k

This part is really funny, because you did make the claim that he was an objectivist…

No? Did I miss something?
[/quote]

He asks for an example. You do not produce one. You then say let’s agree to disagree. That’s odd communication. If you have no example, then your claim was weak and you could acknowledge that. If you have examples to back up the claim then give them and you two can discuss them. IOW you haven’t even shown why you disagree. You state your position. He asks for examples and you say let’s agree to disagree. Bizzarre.

Well right off the bat he was interested in your claims about Nietschze. Second, it seems to me he doesn’t believe in objective morals, nor - unless I missed something - is he someone saying that if we use Rawls things get better.

So, this question seems, also, bizzarre to me. It’s like Pedro represents some group - and I am not even sure he is a member of that group - so you don’t really have to deal with his positions and his questions.

But for some reason it is relevent that he does not defend Faust’s position or at least your rendition of it.

[/quote]
Well, he can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he made it radically clear he was interested in exposing the limitations of your ideas about Nietschze and what his ideas entail.

Then, in Faust’s thread, not yours, you are judging him to be evading something, which is neither the topic of the thread, nor is it the topic he raised. He asked a number of reasonable questions of assertions you made.

This is adult discussion 101. You say: X is the case. People ask you how you know this, what are you basing this on.

You then criticize him for not showing how Rawls system does X or for not solving conflicting goods around abortion. And make not the slightest effort to justify your claims, the ones he asked about. You have repeatedly called people children here, and while only an adult could respond so ridiculously, you are not engaging in adult conversation.

Just because you want to know why you should listen to Rawls or have your abortion issue solved, does not mean that other people are failing when they focus on your claims.

This is, again, discussion 101.

Hey Marionettes :wink:
Don’t you realize by now that the dude is misconstruing everything you say, mostly having not read it, in order to get you pissed off and posting, giving him energy and internet-credits?

Karpel, Ecmandu, you guys should have IQs north of 140, so why can’t you see through these tactics?
Answer; the tactics are as old as language is. Why liars always have half the world. Its an easy trick to pull.

Same thing in his baby thread for mundane ironists. I looked at the quotes and his quips underneath them, it is perfectly obvious he doesn’t take the time to reflect on the quotes, he just wants them there for the google search so he gets hits.

Im trying to help you guys see why his understanding doesn’t progress, but its like you’re addicted to his snort. In any case the answer is; because if he would understand and concede to this understanding, you would stop typing out impassioned replies to him.

Vampire!

He does a good job at it. I bet he has an IQ somewhat above a hundred.
Above a certain IQ vampires don’t exist because smart people have better things to do than steal. They can like, make stuff. Like a capitalist :wink:

The funny thing is he will see this response as failing to solve conflicting goods, as if that was my aim.

What are internet credits?

I appreciate the heads up, I do. I find him oddly fascinating. I could be wrong, but I don’t think he is a conscious troll. IOW he is doing what you are saying, but I don’t think he knows it. A few times I have managed to get him to look at one of his communicative acts. But then he moves away and denies and distracts. I am sure there is some kind of addiction involved on my part, also, but truly it is the most amazing thing. We are all like him somewhere in our cognitive make up. There is something we treat in this way. We think we are rational or reading or listening, but really we don’t - because it would be challenging, or whatever. So to me he represents that portion of the human mind that will not look at itself, will not self-evaluate. And with amazing resilience. Utterly amazing how many approaches he manages to be clueless in the face of.

I don’t expect him to ever make a major acknowledgement. I truly don’t. Yet, I still find it interesting, perhaps to my detriment, to keep holding that mirror up.

However unimportant an individual case is in the scheme of things, that process of evasion and denial is important. since I deal with it daily in relation to others and in myself.

How does it hold itself up? How does it maintain, for so long, this utter cluelessness? Why can it not see itself despite a rather broad range of intelligent methods pointing out its blind spots.

And each time I find another thing he denies, will not look at, distracts in relation to, I see how deeply confused a person can be while stringing together seemingly intelligent sentences - that is sentences that in some other context might show some smarts.

This makes me less likely to fall for a …

in real life. Because yes, someone who could be even very intelligent can tell you there is no chair in front of you even when you have your hands on it. This whittles away at the mystification these people use in general.

IOW when I point out, for example his idiocy in the way he responded to Pedro, I wasn’t just telling him, but I was actually writing out the form and specifics of his idiocy there. Noting the tactics, the oddness, the actual form of his denial. That’s useful. That he will finally say ‘Oh, my God, you’re right. I wasn’t answering his questions and I did act as if he owed me an explanation of Rawls, when that expectation makes not the slightest bit of sense.’ No, that’s not going to happen. The process of untying the specific knots of his not responding, not accepting responsibility, that however is useful.

It also stands as a warning. There may be places where I act out in similar ways, despite my own evaluation that I am an adult communicating intelligently.

I think there is revenge in there. I think a strong motive is revenge. To hit to objectivists. To embarrass them. To draw people down into his hole. To mock anyone who finds any meaning or pride or joy.

I suppose I can relate. The shiny happy people out there who are not grounded, I can feel an urge to remind them what reality is like.

But I think that is an underlying motive. IOW his supposed motive is to find how he ought to live. But I think underneath he wants everyone to focus on lifting him up, which brings them down, and that is the real goal.

I can’t be sure of this, but there is disease here, with no interest in actually investing in healing. He’d rather be patient zero.

And it is so ego-dystonic for him to acknowledge that a part of him is cruel and vengeful, he will never notice this himself.

Clicks, hits, likes - attention.

This is why I began to look at whether or not he was actually reading posts before responding to them. I now am fairly sure he glances over them, looks for a few keywords, and then has a little “note to others” and simply begins to type up some quasi philosophical stuff he know will aggravate people that he pretends is a response to the post.

Sometimes no doubt he reads a whole post. But I don’t think he has it in him to think about what he reads. He is too professional of a troll for this, he couldnt produce the sheer volume of trolling if he spent time on using his mind as a tool rather than as a toy.

I really doubt that you will find a human answer. I think the answer is simply that he likes the attention and knows that if he would pronounce an honest thought, people would be less interested in him than when he pronounces the most bizarre stupidities masquerading as honest interpretations.

Ok, its possible that in real life you have such behaviour as well. Though the internet is really its natural environment. It is a trick that comes with not seeing the persons face and not having to pay for what he says. A newspaper can’t do this, because then you stop buying it. But a free product can do it.

Do you have an experience where dealing with this guy over here helped you understand a real life situation?

I guess up to a certain point it helps to sharpen some of ones own faculties. But that shouldnt take too long, Id say.

Hmmm. That could apply to any misdeed. Im not sure I accept this proposal.

Im sure youve observed some truth there.
Add this to the nihilistic motive of internet-credits, basic attention, it fits.

So I suppose it is also kind of a pity-party for him. But he is the one who holds the strings. Quite familiar sort of structure. He is like Tony Sopranos mom.

Livia.

Anyway in this very thread he praises his most valued projects, with an exact hit number for the biggest. He says he is most proud of his movie thread.
That is all perfectly normal, if a bit… well, shallow, given that this is a philosophy site.
But the problem is where he inserts this desire for any hit or bit of attention he can get into a real philosophical discussion, with the little means he has crafted or chosen to perpetuate any impasse indefinitely. That is obscene, rancid, slimy rot dripping from meat one shouldnt have had in the first place, etc etc etc.

Let him stick to his movie thread and the other ones where he just copies stuff other people wrote and adds uninspired comments to no one in particular.

As if I have any power over that. And I don’t want to see him banned, I basically only want antisemites banned. Because they’re cockroaches without distinct identities. See how that works? Hate breeds hate. Thats not what this is.
I guess Im just repeating my warning that one should be wary of taking this guy at his word.

Look, it is all one therapy session too.
Requiem for an aborted life and a severed friendship.

He is vengeancing his human losses onto us by means of an inane technique. He is no doubt having some fun. But it is a dusty attic on a lonesome Sunday kind of fun, not healthy.

on the other hand (edit) if I put it like this, it is really quite touching that y’all are so involved.
And this site has a very handy “foe” option so Ill just stick to that.

If he is a conscious troll, that would be irritating. That’s less interesting.

You may be right, but I think actually he can’t face himself. That it’s not hiding it from us that motivates him, but hiding it from himself. He’s pissed, he has blame. If he is doing something wrong, and regularly, this would undermine the rage he doesnt want to notice driving him. That’s my take.

Sure, I have probably done it online. I would guess most have pulled similar shit on some issue in some relationship.

Yes, I think face to face it would fall apart. I think a lot of people would no longer be able to put up strong fronts.

Nothing in a one to one pattern where I can say, oh, calling Iamb on his shit, writing out what it was helped me. But I think it…hm…is part of me getting that people can be really quite idiotic while also making intelligent noises and, yes, can really not know themselves. There is a naive part of me that thinks everyone is like me. And despite piles of counterevidence, this naive part still hangs on. Seeing that he, over and over, cannot notice what he is doing, is making me less surprised. I mean, it’s hard to say what is the cause of me getting less naive, even in my deepest parts, since there are a number of things I do to try to convince that part it is confused. And if he is a conscious troll, this is part of the same pattern on my part. That people would really hit themselves in the face with a hammer to get one over on people. My naive part has trouble believing it, even though I have seen it time and again.

Perhaps.

I have that within me that is capable of any misdeed.

LOL, perfect. Though she took to action, and while it was horrible, she had the courage of her rage. So she gets the nod.

Let’s focus first on this part.

Note this claim I am supposed to have made that Nietzsche is an objectivist.

You’re correct. I was wrong here. I missed the exact grammar of that sentence.

It’s a subjunctive sentence.
And presumably you do not think he insisted this. Correct?

First person subjunctive is always a tricky point of view. Why? Because there are those parts of the brain that are in fact able to clearly distinguish between things that are true [reasonable to believe] and things that are not.

But a subjunctive frame of mind revolves more around the deep-seated reaction that we have to things. Our emotional and psychological and instinctive reactions in turn.

Wiki: The subjunctive is a grammatical mood (that is, a way of speaking that allows people to express their attitude toward what they are saying) found in many languages. Subjunctive forms of verbs are typically used to express various states of unreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgement, opinion, obligation, or action that have not yet occurred; the precise situations in which they are used vary from language to language.

Our brain seems able to establish that Nietzsche did in fact exist. And that he did speculate about that which is construed by him and others to be a “will to power”.

But then different folks react to that in different ways. For example, someone like Satyr over at KT tends to link it to has own assumptions regarding so-called natural behavior. For him and his clique/claque there, it’s all about our place in nature. And understanding that solely as he does. With regards to such things as gender roles, race, and sexuality. Then there are those like Ayn Rand. For her both the will and power are obligated to revolve around her own “metaphysical” assumptions about human interactions rooted objectively in Reason.

Her own only.

Then those folks who seem to link it to one or another rendition [their own] of the masters and the slaves. They truly understand a superior set of values and are ever and always ready to heap scorn on those who refuse to toe [and then tow] their line.

Here [for better or for worse] most of them are Kids.

But then how is this assumption not but my own rendition of it all? Indeed, the assumptions I make here are no less construed by me to be an existential contraption.

As for Nietzsche’s own reaction to this “general description” of mine, others are either able to cite passages of his one way or the other or they’re not.

My point though is that however one reacts to the “will to power”, it must eventually be brought down to earth and implicated contextually in the lives that we actually live.

If some part of that was an answer to my question, I can’t tell what the answer is.

How is this…

[b]As for Nietzsche’s own reaction to this “general description” of mine, others are either able to cite passages of his one way or the other or they’re not.

My point though is that however one reacts to the “will to power”, it must eventually be brought down to earth and implicated contextually in the lives that we actually live.[/b]

…not an answer?

If not the one that you are looking for.

I would need those who deem themselves to be authorities on Nietzsche, to cite passages from him that examine the extent to which he believed that his and only his understanding of the “will to power” reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding of it.

Meanwhile, why don’t you make the attempt to respond to the others points that I raised above.

Also, given your own understanding of “will to power”, how is it applicable to you as a pragmatist when confronting those who do argue that it is a noble reflection of the argument that right makes might.

That, in other words, the ubermen don’t exercise their own will to power merely because they have the brute strength to, but because they construe this power to be a worthy adjunct of those they deem to be of the master class and not of the herd.

It sounds like you are saying you don’t know. That’s fine. You could just say that.

Other possible clear answers would have been ‘yes’ and ‘no’.

Note to others:

Here I have made a number of points in my posts above, which, in my view, might lend themselves to an interesting [and substantive] exchange.

Instead, he is back to examining me here. Why I chose to answer as I did and not how he would have liked me to.

Well, what about the points I raised? Anyone care to actually pursue them?

Yes, Iamb is quite right. I asked a simple question a few posts back. He wrote a rather long post bringing up a lot of extraneous stuff and as far as I could tell did not answer the question. I mentioned this and he then posted what seemed possibly like and answer, which I paraphrased to see if it was the case. He opted not to confirm here.

He did, however, raise one of his perennial issues, which I was not interested in answering, however odd this may seem to him, me not being just like him.

Yes, I know. You personalize people and assess them psychologically. If I am a nihilist but am not as fractured as you I have some ideology that comforts me and you know what it is. You open the door to ad psychological stuff and then complain when you get responses in the same vein. Welcome to concrete reality. A place where even your actions and behavior and psychology may become the focus. Where other people are not just ideas in your head with the task of fixing your hole.

To be clear, I wanted to understand the answer to a question that had three possible answers: yes, no and I don’t know. The first time it elicited an extremely long answer that could not be interpreted as any of these. The second time, he did seem to make an effort to answer, though, I can’t be sure since he did not confirm my interpretation. I wanted no specific answer, but yes, I did sin on the side of wanting an actual direct response about what he thought was the case.

.

Okay, let’s assume I failed to answer this simple question of yours. Pease note the question again, so that you can explain to us in more detail why you believe I did not answer it. And then “possibly answered it”. What does that mean?

And note just a couple of the points I raised above that in your view are extraneous. What do you mean by this?

I don’t know how make it any clearer.

Objectivists react to me as they do here because I am clearly confronting them with a frame of mind that, if applicable to them, brings their own understanding of the “real me” in sync with the “right thing to do” crashing down. The last thing they want to believe about their own value judgments is that they are existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

But you, like me, are not a moral objectivist. We consider ourselves to be pragmatists…in however differently we have come to understand the meaning of that word.

But it’s that difference that most intrigues me.

My own understanding of it [as related to you on another thread] revolves around this:

With me I never feel completely comfortable regarding my own existential leap to a particular political prejudice. Why? Because I recognize [here and now] how my value judgments are just existential contraptions rooted in dasein. And that even to the extent I am able to convince myself that [in my case] the liberals have the better argument, my understanding of conflicting goods then forces me to accept that I accept this only because I have become predisposed existentially to embrace the assumptions made in the liberal arguments. An argument encompassed of late in my exchange with Peter Kropotkin regarding individual reactions to capitalism.

I’m merely grappling to understand how, when confronting contexts in which your own values are challenged, you do not react like this. You seem to just accept it better than I am able to.

So only to the extent that you note actual contexts in which these potential confrontations might crop up, will I come closer to understanding your own frame of mind.

No, objectivists react to you because your entire philosophy abrogates all responsibility, and also like a dominance brainwasher, to get everyone to say that 2+2=5, while all of your actions prove that you believe 2+2=4.

That’s some fucking evil ass shit.