Come Back!

[iambiguous]

@Moreno

@iambiguous

@Fixed Cross

That’s actually a far more interesting thread than what’s been going on here lately.

True. Way too many Kids here. And, as I noted above [or somewhere], it is obvious that Satyr has given some serious thought to many of the things that folks tend to think of philosophers pursuing. So has Monooq/Mo/von rivers.

But, as I proposed to statiktech above, they are both locked into this bullshit psychological agenda where the other has to admit that he is wrong. In this respect they are [to me] both moral and political objectivists.

In this sense: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

All that “I am a river to my people” crap.

Well, if it is crap of course.

Nice catch with the disclaimer at the end.

It seems to me little difference if one labels people negatively because they will not admit one cannot be certain about something
or one labels people, if Mo has for example, because they will not admit there are moral truths. It seems to me both sides want the other to perform a linguistic move the other is unwilling to make. And here we have the epistemological relativist - meaning you - putting people in a set with a label, a set you elsewhere blame for making things worse - with occasional disclaimers.

Once again, I am not at all sure what it is exactly that perturbs you most about what you think I am doing here. I can react only to things that others claim are either true for all of us or are deemed true in their own subjective opinion.

So I am hardly what I construe to be an “epistemological relativist”. After all, I am more than willing to embrace objective truths regarding any number of things. In fact, universal truths in all likelihood.

It is more the manner in which their debate devolves [rather quickly] into a pissing contest embodied [by and large] in the male ego.

I know: You and I can start a new thread in which we explore the extent to which [regarding relationships like this] my “dasein dilemma” is applicable to, say, you.

[iambiguous]

@statiktech

But, as I proposed to statiktech above, they are both locked into this bullshit psychological agenda where the other has to admit that he is wrong.

It’s not an agenda, it’s called an argument. You’ll find those occur in philosophy pretty often. Nobody has to admit anything as a good argument should speak for itself.

That, in my opinion, is still more productive than simply throwing your hands up and remaining in a state of relativistic indifference because the subject is complicated.

The OP is certainly thought provoking [if numbingly abstract pertaining to what most interest me] and the exchange between Mo and Stuart seems to be constructive enough. But whenever Satyr and the gang show up…

And that can prompt Mo to suggest things like, “take your fingers out of your pussy, and type a reply to something I actually said.”
I suspect Mo’s agenda [playing the straight man by and large] is just to bait them. But being a polemicist myself, I can appreciate that.

And I am personally in favor of both of them “coming back” here and exchanging their good, bad and ugly ideas. Just yank it out of philosophy and dump it into rant when they won’t or can’t keep it civil. Why should exchanges only be educational? Why not, uh, entertaining too?

[Mr_Reasonable]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn-enjcgV1o[/youtube]

[Arminius]

Come back, Laughing Man, Tyler Durden, James L. Walker, Tyrannus, Joker!

He is young, and he needs the money Anerkennung.

[Orbie]

Does anybody really mean that, what if he is back? We are simply super empowering his ego, he may think he is essential. Or is there a way to overcome this perception, and i am not saying this is how he thinks. I suspect it’s quite the opposite. I think something in hisBeing here, is essentially a catch twenty two, on his part also, "hell if i will, (come back/stay), hell if i won’t.(ibid)