Keep in mind that I’m bored.
That doesn’t mean you’re not trolling. Expressions of personal honestly can be troll-like.
I fail to see the self-depreciative humor in calling any person who doesn’t believe the stupid shit you do a ‘pseudo-philosopher’. In fact, if that’s humor, then it’s the opposite of self-depreciative humor. It’s self-pompous humor. You’re basically asserting that only people who believe what you do are real philosophers. To hell with the critics! They aren’t even philosophers.
You failed to get past the pomposity.
No one has called your assertions uncompromising…another example of how you’ve failed to get past the pomposity.
Your ‘philosophy’ (it’s in quotations because theology would be more appropriate) gravitates upon the notion of a sky daddy. universal consciousness…blah blah…Calling it something else won’t make the arguments for God less laughable. You’re no where near Earth, pal.
There are no original observations in philosophy. There are in the sciences…but not in philosophy. The same shit that has been said since the time of Plato is being said today…it’s only been fleshed out a bit more.
That’s funny.
So you’re saying, in the bolded part, that living a hard and adventurous life is both necessary and sufficient for being a philosopher. In that case it seems that Plato the aristocrat wasn’t a philosopher. In fact, most of those who we today consider philosophers apparently aren’t philosophers at all. Locke wasn’t a philosopher. Neither was Hume. Nor Spinoza or Kierkegaard, and forget about Nietzsche.
Pseudo-intellectual masturbation you say. Armchair, you say, all the while assuming that philosophy deals with natural kinds, meaning it’s something that must be discovered out there. We need to get out of the armchair! No, we fucking don’t, and I’m tired of hearing idiots say such things. Philosophers aren’t scientists. Where scientists look at natural kinds, to find that the essence of water is H2O for instance, philosophers look at things like justification, knowledge, art, morality, logic, etc. That knowledge is justified true belief plus something else couldn’t have been discovered by beheading dogs. Logic or knowledge are not something one understands and advances after shooting elephants. They’re things understood and advanced from the armchair and with a quiet, modest, and studious mind untroubled by conflict or necessity.
What you want to do is develop an all encompassing ontology…You want to seal the universe in a tight little box, where every phenomenon is explained by some sort of principle you’ve concocted. Let me tell you something, old man. There’s a reason why modern philosophers no longer do that, and it’s not because they haven’t lived adventurous lives, or because they’re stupid. It’s because they’re modest. It’s because they see where philosophy ends and religion begins. You see, that all-encompassing approach to philosophy was abandoned long ago when it became obvious it couldn’t be epistemically justified. When one couldn’t in good faith approach philosophy in this wya…when it was realized that only pompous self-important, and frankly, stupid men want to capture lightning in a bottle.
And trolls should be banned.