Have a fight

Some people in alot of threads have a tendency to just abandon good communication and charitable interpretation and just fight.

Here’s a place to go and fight so that other threads don’t get de-railed.

Next time you just get all frustrated and retreat into insults and nonsense, come here and keep the other threads on track with the original subjects.

Try and have enough respect in here so that nothing becomes a real issue, and enjoy.

Mundane bubble is not a place for a fight, come and visit the rant house.
I would like to use this occasion to inform you about my John Bolton award what you have received.

Sincerely,
Raven

Mears, consider something for a moment. Let’s say I had several convictions against most people, and believed that these convictions should be adopted by a few others who are like myself. I might join a philosophy forum with one intention: to exercise this hostility in public, hoping to attract like minded thinkers. Given the probability that the majority of the people at the public setting are the people I hold such convictions against, I wouldn’t, for tactical reasons, be polite and respectful during conversation. If the chances are greater that I might be wasting my time arguing with a person who I wouldn’t even look at (unless through a rifle scope) in person if we met, why then would I waste any time trying to find the few who I consider worthy of my company by attacking those who are not?

In short, enter a forum with your guns blazing and you increase the chances of finding the ones you desire, and weeding out the ones you do not. Or, you get banned. But sometimes you prefer to get banned, because it suggests that you are at a forum full of a bunch of pussies anyway, and you wouldn’t want to be there for any other reason than finding the other ones who might get banned. Pretend this forum is a market place full of a bunch of flies, out of which will emerge a few outlaws who will be exiled and begin a new Rome.

So let’s say I don’t like you. Why would I concern myself with discussing philosophy with you if you are what I consider the problem? Once enough information is gathered about a person to make the decision that they are a problem, not a moment should be wasted in assaulting them. This is the use of hostility at the forum. It simultaneously offends those who are the problem and attracts those who are also aware of who and what the problem is.

A sort of natural-selection in debate and ethics. I seek to conspire for power with only a few. My radar is on and the blips are overwhelming. There is no time to waste! I must seek and destroy.

There are a few Apolcalpse (of the Marvel genera) wannabes of philosophy/intelligence here. Its generally alot more synaptically stimulating to follow up a verbal attack with a visualized fight. It’d be great to put philsophers into a kinda Marvel chaotic final battle for superiority scenerio: you’d get the ancient big three of Soc, Plat, Arist who’s world and lives are so… old and different its hard to imagine, it’s even harder to imagine that people will one day think the same of ‘our times’ etc. Those guys’d be massive. Then theres your Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant. D, S and K been the central role characters with a love affair thrown in for the ladies. And then, oh no! Hegel (who’d be wearing a cloak). Then would come Team Existential: Kierk, Niet, Sat and there allies. Marx joining with a big hammer. Heid, Witt, Russ and co the type that run up throw a bunch and run for safety. Add a few others i’ve missed into the mix and woooooooo!

Who’d come out the blood covered exhausted champ?

If the series is successful they can (after a time worping pan-dimensional passage were there all brought back to life) bring in fresh new challengers into the mix of the story, add a gigantic final show down between Western Vs Eastern philosophers; with Newt, Plank, Einst, Hawk et el brought in to make the second series almost as good as the first, as the first of anything is always the best through nostalgia and shock. Series two with Dragonforce Z angry-mid-air-‘Arghs!’-supense-slow-motion-scenes. If it was still huge, instead of dragging it out like they’ve done with Lost, they could… ah blah.

Because you are open-minded and embrace the rational.

Kesh: My money’s on the Greeks in a fight – they were wrestlers and ex-military.

[quote=“kesh”]
There are a few Apolcalpse (of the Marvel genera) wannabes of philosophy/intelligence here. Its generally alot more synaptically stimulating to follow up a verbal attack with a visualized fight. It’d be great to put philsophers into a kinda Marvel chaotic final battle for superiority scenerio: you’d get the ancient big three of Soc, Plat, Arist who’s world and lives are so… old and different its hard to imagine, it’s even harder to imagine that people will one day think the same of ‘our times’ etc. Those guys’d be massive. Then theres your Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant. D, S and K been the central role characters with a love affair thrown in for the ladies. And then, oh no! Hegel (who’d be wearing a cloak). Then would come Team Existential: Kierk, Niet, Sat and there allies. Marx joining with a big hammer. Heid, Witt, Russ and co the type that run up throw a bunch and run for safety. Add a few others i’ve missed into the mix and woooooooo!

Who’d come out the blood covered exhausted champ?

Kant would totally dominate.

[quote=“ScottMears”]

[quote=“kesh”]
There are a few Apolcalpse (of the Marvel genera) wannabes of philosophy/intelligence here. Its generally alot more synaptically stimulating to follow up a verbal attack with a visualized fight. It’d be great to put philsophers into a kinda Marvel chaotic final battle for superiority scenerio: you’d get the ancient big three of Soc, Plat, Arist who’s world and lives are so… old and different its hard to imagine, it’s even harder to imagine that people will one day think the same of ‘our times’ etc. Those guys’d be massive. Then theres your Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant. D, S and K been the central role characters with a love affair thrown in for the ladies. And then, oh no! Hegel (who’d be wearing a cloak). Then would come Team Existential: Kierk, Niet, Sat and there allies. Marx joining with a big hammer. Heid, Witt, Russ and co the type that run up throw a bunch and run for safety. Add a few others i’ve missed into the mix and woooooooo!

Who’d come out the blood covered exhausted champ?

Kant would totally dominate.

Perhaps next to Ric Flair, Kant is the greatest philosophical mind the West has produced. I’ve struggled through the Critique of Pure Reason, but needed secondary sources to “get him”, to the extent that I do. His formulation of the categorical imperative as part of our moral “furniture” is confirmed by many current schools of cognitive neuroscience. Most biopsychologists agree that an innate “moral grammar” as well as precepts such as causation or number are part of our genetic inheritance.

Some of Kant’s conclusions don’t withstand the findings of many cognitive scientists. Lakoff and Johnson in “Philosophy in the Flesh” find that contrary to Kant’s views of autonomy and rationality, we are greatly constrained in the way we can think, pointing to the power of the “cognitive unconscious” which is acknowledged to largely govern how we can think and how we can conceive of the world. (p.537)“Our unconscious conceptual systems, which structure the cognitive unconscious, limit how we can think and guarantee that we could not possibly have the kind of autonomy that Kant ascribed to us.”

All foundational and evaluative questions lead back to Kant, who addressed all the questions and set the table for thinkers to the time we post.

In a "Pre-Postmodern Royal Rumble, Russell may have an unfair advantage because he lived much too long. But Kant saved science from Hume’s destruction of causation, and without science these posts and this forum wouldn’t be here. Kant, just before dying of cerebral exhaustion, throws a 99 year old Russell over the top rope. It isn’t necessary, Russell dies, when realizing his solution to the “Liar Paradox” has been rejected by a peer review at ILovePhilosophy.

I don’t consider Bertrand Russel my peer. He’s not even a real philosopher.

change your avatar or suffer the consequences

Done. But tell me what the consequences would have been. I’m a bit strange, I can change it back if the punishment will be great enough.

it would have been scary, too scary to mention here

You can tell me in a pm.

be afraid

I’m too dumb and egotistical to be afraid.

how can you be dumb and egotistical at the same time?

It’s not easy.

if you were egotistical i dont think youd think you were dumb

I could explain it, but it’s a dumb egotistical thing, you wouldn’t understand. It’d be total nonsense to the intelligent, non egotistical mind.

explain, id like to know

I’ll have to save that for another thread.