Since when did a philosopher only concern himself with questions, and not the answers to those questions???
If you cannot answer your own questions, then your philosophy is failed.
Hyper Philosophy is about producing new information, new knowledge, new theses. I do not want to hear boring bullshit anymore. I want something new. I feed you (information). You feed me (information). If you cannot do this, then you cannot do philosophy. Life is about giving and taking. If you only take, then, what good are you as a relation? You would be a leech, leeching knowledge off of others, as most wannabe thinkers do with dead authors and their dusty books. Get rid of them. I do not want to hear anymore dead memories. Burn the books. Replace them. I want to see new thoughts, at an accelerated rate. If you cannot produce, then you should be cut. Simple as that really.
All too simple, Hyper Philosophy. Say something, new, fast, move on to the next topic.
All human social interaction is predicated upon the Sex drive.
Power exists only with respect to genetic replication, nothing else otherwise.
Survival is implied through reproduction.
Statements. Done. Now it’s your turn. Produce something or leave.
Getting out of your chair and applying your thoughts to the real world is always dangerous; it is a confrontation with reality. The enemy is fear and/of failure.
How long must we sit on the graves of dead philosophies before we realize that this is a new millennium and we are not growing any younger? Burn the books, all of them, everything. Burn it all down and build a new temple, something modern, something applicable to this new globalized world we live in. A monument to tomorrow, and the bridges of stars that we will cross. Anybody who references a source outside himself, when engaging and inquiring philosophy, should be shot. I tire of appeals to authority everywhere I go, every argument I engage, every discussion I step foot in and enter. If you cannot become your own authority in life, then what good is your philosophy, or worse, what good are you as a human being? You are not good, imo. You are bad/weak/evil. It is time to scrape the weak minds off the boot heel of the strong minded with a knife.
Any ‘good’ philosopher should only speak for himself, ever, forever. If you need to reference another, then your philosophy is a failure. If you need to reference the bible for your moral judgments, for example, then you are a failure as a moral compass, a guide to life that nobody can respect, another mere follower. The world is filled with followers. We need leaders, vast majorities of leaders, of strong minds. No more Nietzscheans, no more Christians, no more Muslims. We need something new. As philosophers, let us make Reason our God, our Truth, our Absolution. If you cannot backup your claims with reason(s), then you shouldn’t be here to begin with. Right? Right!
Produce something. Say something new. Otherwise, don’t say anything at all. I have read every recent thread on this website. They are repeats of everything I’ve heard before. It becomes boring when just one or two or three individuals can, “bring something to the table”. Maybe, though, nature intended humanity to only breed a few real thinkers or philosophers in the world at a time. I don’t know. I wish I did. Why must just one alpha male dominate any given group? Why cannot there be several fighting it out to the death? This is the only way to produce something new, to lay it all on the line, throw all your chips in. Perhaps we live in an age of (intellectual, and physical) cowardice. Again, I don’t know. I wish I did. It surely seems like it, the cowardice that is.
I didn’t mean dangerous to one’s self; I meant dangerous to society. People take ideas seriously, and without an attitude of critical reception of those ideas, it leads to things like religion and Marxism.
Not forever. I’ll agree with you insofar as there comes a point when we’ve sucked the value of some ancient philosophy dry and we then starve for the blood of new ideas, but we starve in a different way if we don’t cling to certain recent philosophies for at least some sufficiently long while. In that case, we aren’t sucking any blood at all.
Your whole attitude sounds a tad harsh to me, but I like the idea of refusing to bow down to the authority of others (primarily because they have none - at least, not absolutely). But in that case, CI, your system of streamlined philosophy sounds more like an exercise in futility. Far from posing a danger to society in virtue of people taking ideas seriously, everyone takes seriously only their own ideas, in which case it’s hard to imagine that anyone would ever come to an agreement. This would all be fine and dandy so long as we’re willing to accept philosophy being reduced to an artform much like film. It’s value would be primarily in its power to entertain, much like the common folk going out to a movie on the weekend, but thereafter forgets much about it and becomes ready for the next movie on the following weekend. Personally, I don’t recoil at the thought of philosophy playing the roll of an artform - for I believe that is one of its highest values - but I also think it has so much more potential than that - for example, being applied to solve practical problems (social, political, scientific, etc.), but in order to fulfill this purpose, we must take care to examine proposed philosophies critically and for a good long while.
BTW, where’s your new and original contribution to philosophy?
Since the restricting metaphysical pattern of 'search for “truth” ’ was uncovered.
NEXT, PLEASE!
Nice energy, but your demanded impatience will provide you with hyper-experimentation, but hypo-maturation potential. Are you somewhat a product of the de-sensitised fashion-lead fad-centric ADHD modern consumer lifestyle?
I agree with this.
This, I believe, is where philosophy is going. It already properly kicked off with Nietzsche though.
Some of my newer ideas that I have chosen to publicise on this forum include Solipsism from the point where you realise if there is only 1 self - and no others besides to feel alienated from, and that there is no possession implied by the term whatsoever.
Also, my ideas on ‘nothingness’ relating to what ‘things’ where before they were conceptualised/named.
Instant consideration of these ideas may yield something, but a protracted contemplation may add to this somewhat - rounding off the total understanding of them? You’re simply reversing the privileging of one side of a binary opposition - where philosophy has had a history of serious hard scholarly evaluation, what do you achieve by answering that with fleeting swift prejudice?
Are you serious!?!?!? Have you read 9/10ths of the crap people write on philosophy boards such as these? Go read something by Smears. You may quickly learn that almost nobody takes anything “seriously” concerning ideals. Most people are not intelligent enough to take an ideal seriously. They do not understand them or their implications, after they necessarily become implied. If more people understood this, then more people could openly read minds.
That is the risk of good philosophy. You risk becoming corrupted by followers, slander, and idolatry. But this is necessary (risk) for any superior intelligence.
I disagree, here is my counter proposal. As soon as a real philosopher dies, then his thoughts should be put to rest and not discussed any longer. Bury him in an unmarked grave, with his books, and burn every living copy. As soon as a person dies, their thoughts should die too. That way we no longer have to worry about desecrating the memories of the dead. No more Nietzsche, no more Jesus, no more rehashing Descartes or politicizing Marx. Cut it all loose. Only the living should have a stake in the game, have a voice, have a say, have an authority. Shoot anybody that references a dead man. End the appeals to (external) authority. This method effectively cuts the weak minded off from the strong minded. It disallows weak thinkers from clinging onto an ill-deserved life raft, one not meant for them in the first place. Let us, the strong minded ones, coat ourselves in oil … so that the masses cannot grab us and pull us down with them. No more making philosophers into idols, Nietzsche, Jesus, Shopenhauer, Kant, whoever. Cut them all loose. What we can do in the 21st Century now, is, name our successors. In other words, if I have something important to say (deemed by others), and some day I die, then I should name a successor to carry on where I left off, or, not at all. We can do this via internet threads. If somebody does not name or leave a successor, then, nobody should have authority to reference his arguments ever again. This way there can be no more arguing on behalf of the dead, or against the dead. It is time to lay the dead thinkers of centuries past to rest, once and for all. Make idiots pay for their idiocy and constant referencing. Call them on it. Call their bluff. Expose their ignorance to others, to everybody.
Good, it is meant to be harsh. I intend to mix a strong dose of pragmatism into philosophy. What is philosophy without pragmatism? Do you know, Gib? It is superstition. It is conspiracy theories. It is belief in God. It is Christianity, Nietzscheanism, religion, whatever. Worse, it is unscientific. It is anti-empirical.
I disagree. I aim to make metaphysics into an empirical science. I know this can be done, and without too much effort.
All we need to do, Gib, is mix natural science with epistemological ontology. It is a piece of cake, really.
First of wrong, you are wrong about a major point gib. I cannot count the literally thousands of times I have argued with people in my life and the very first thing they attack, almost always, is the, “seriousness” of an argument, as if philosophy neither is serious to begin with, nor, that people are capable of accepting grandiose ideals, or new sciences, with respect to knowledge that clearly transcends their (miniscule) thinking. This is a common method that employs selective reasoning. I mean, literally, I can watch on peoples faces this happening when I converse with them about deeper philosophical principles. They need an outlet for their incomprehension. The first thing they attack, almost always, is the others supposed ‘seriousness’. And if you disallow this attack, then they most often retort with an accusation of boredom. As in, “gibs personal physical theories on his homepage are too booooooring to read through all the way! I am certain there is nothing interesting there to be said.” Common rhetoric. Imagine if people had to take you seriously. What would happen???
Yes, I agree with your validation here. But you need to keep in mind that there is, or at least should be, a division between those who can think coherent thoughts as a philosophy, and those who cannot, the “common folk” as you just put it. These are the ones that we must reduce our philosophies down into a play, an entertainment, something unserious. Something whimsy or lyrical, like a play or puppet show. The weak minded are easily dazzled by lights. Perhaps we could provide fireworks at such functions, as philosophical conventions. Give the morons some fireworks to play with, and they are content for a lifetime. But do not challenge them or question their accusations of, “You can’t be serious!?” These kinds of people do not have what it takes.
After these two groups are separated out, then Hyper Philosophy extends between the two groups. It provides a fast interaction between the strong minded and the weak minded, the ones who have powerful things to say, and the ones who do not. What my method does, is, relegates very quickly who provides and produces a philosophy, and who does not. Now, as for results, depending on a forum or whatever. The ones who cannot adapt should be either straight kicked out, or, socially ridiculed due to a lack of (philosophical) contribution. In other words, if an individual cannot produce a philosophy, here, on a philosophy forum, then what good is he??? I say, of course, no good. Therefore, he should become kicked out of the group.
Silly gib, I already gave you one. I integrate the physical function of Power into genetic theory, thus implying that Power is a function of biological processes.
If you do not see that as new or original, then I desperately implore you to tell me where you have heard the same!? Nah, in fact, I demand it, lol!
“Power is a function of biological processes.” Darwin neither stated this nor implied it. Why? Because it is a physical theorem, not one of natural selection.
That depends on where you want to take the point. I want things to move even faster, not slower. If people cannot keep up, then, this is a result of their failed genetics, their failed ability to adapt to an ever-changing (manmade) environment. But that is beside the point. I am talking about the ability for an ideal to survive without rigorous and constant testing. That is hyper. Or, at least, it should be.
Wait a second … so what was your conclusion? You just provided a point with no reference. Or, are you just waiting for a conclusion??
Sounds interesting, perhaps you can make a contribution here?
Results! Simple as that. Philosophy has been result and conclusion deprived for long enough.
I am not saying, stating, or implying that contemplation is not key, or crucial, to philosophy. I am saying, however, that we should pick it up a notch at the other end. We need to produce! Right? Right! This differentiates who should be ‘in’ group or ‘out’ group in a philosophical schema. If you cannot produce, then why are you here in the first place, except to socialize perhaps? You want to learn, but, not contribute. That is leeching, to me. You want to gain knowledge without paying a price. That seems unacceptable, to me.
Ok, if that’s what you want: hyper, this is indeed the way to test for the survival of ideals “without rigorous and constant testing”. I just hope that you appreciate that focusing on speed will only open you up to different experiences - but not necessarily better ones. ‘Failed genetics’ - only against the arbitrary conditions you just attempted to set up.
That Solipsism is massively misunderstood and deserves more than cursory prejudiced disinterest inspired by personal comfort zones. It’s not ‘correct’ any more than any other ontological or epistemological stance, until you define assumptions, but it demonstrates nicely the lack of need for ‘unempirical allowances’ that cannot be empirically verified - like “other people’s perceptions” - and this extends to other unempirically ‘rationally induced existences’ like God and heaven etc. This is all a step forward in a new exciting & secular direction - and I’m all for change.
It’s simply to correct the abstract treatment of the word ‘nothing’ when it denotes an inference that is positive in its nature. To infer a ‘lack of anything’ is positive and active. For ‘nothing’ to denote anything, it’s contradictory in a way that lacks context and meaning - defying any connection to there being a word for it & how the word is used when it is used. If ‘nothing’ is used to denote what ‘is’ before it’s been named as a ‘thing’, it’s closer to how the word is used in language, it now brings utility to the word, and the contradiction between ‘nothing’ being a word has meaning.
This can be progressed into another one of my newer ideas: that there is a prejudice throughout the majority of philosophy against the value in ‘contradiction’.
This brings me to another of my newer ideas: that the answer is literally a rewording of the question when the question is fully expounded.
You seem to privilege equality or revenge, not only impatience. We don’t need to produce. I am an existentialist - there is literally NO objective need or truth or purpose whatsoever.
Before I got to the point I am now in philosophy, I needed to leech to get up to speed. My ideas had already thought of and would only be dismissed as plageurism. I required this leeching in order to get to this point where I am now able to contribute newness. And now, by no means am I willing to yet publicise the full range of my newer ideas.
Hyper philosophy sounds very competitive and goal-oriented. Produce what? For whom? How will I know when I have produced something?
You’re demanding results, but has it occurred to you that it may be important to think about what counts as a result, as a product? What form does production take? The form of this last question is itself misguided. Production takes multiple forms. You seem to want to privilege a specific form of philosophical production.
You want to see statements in argument form. But how did you come to those particular statements and how did you form that particular argument. There is much more behind your statements. You just choose to brush the rest aside. You don’t want to acknowledge process? This is hyper philosophy?
Life is about much more than “giving and taking.” And so is philosophy.
I have always understood good philosophy to be a process of free, creative, and honest inquiry.
Why unnecessarily and arbitrarily limit oneself to rapid fire thinking with unchecked preconceived notions of what the acceptable product of philosophy will be? What is the hurry? Problems and questions already burn with urgency in a true philosopher.
Of course we want to answer our questions, but in my opinion the measure of a good philosopher does not hang on his answers to questions but on the quality of his thinking process and the transformative power of his ideas.
Also, philosophy is often about exploring permutations in perspective. New ways of approaching old problems and old questions. In my estimation, hyper philosophy would be narrowly focused thinking about a specific problem (or a specific type of problem) with a specific idea for what counts as a possible answer to the problem. Hyper philosophy may be well-suited for some problems but ill-suited for others.
Agreed, but I think he acknowledges this and wants to see where it’ll go - and there’s a certain charm in that. Just not too broad a one. If anything, this thread can be looked at as an experiment in the changes of taste that happen over the ages. Or as a created opportunity by the thread opener to attempt to steal other people’s ideas. An attack on the notion of private property? lol.
Not to mention the disregard for ancestry and what we can learn from them, or use in them to deepen the foundations of our thoughts - all philosophers of note have come to prominence by explicitly criticising their predecessors and using their theories as a step up to their own prominence. So it’s riddled with problems, but when it comes down to it, they’re only conservative problems.
So, where do you get the idea that any scientific or philosophical concerns are ever finished? On theoretical models Karl Popper quite correctly notes that they are falsifiable; they are our best bet until somebody comes up with a better idea. In a fictional closed system wherein all controversies have been resolved, there is no room for creative ideas, for progessive insights, for anything other than complete mental stagnation.
No, this is pretty me. However, your attempt to inject Nietzsche into my philosophies and ideals is worth noting. I see this as you attempting to associate your ideals, as a Nietzschean, into my own. Nietzsche has little to nothing to do with the physical formula for a power equation, especially relating to genetics. I think you are stretching or overstepping your bounds to assert this point.
What do you mean without rigorous and constant testing??? Nowhere did I imply that. Hyper philosophy is rigorous and constant testing. It is about making statements, fast, and proving/disproving them even faster. This is rigorous and constant to those who posit something, a statement. It is about results-orientated-inquiry, a different kind of philosophical activity.
Let us begin with Possible results. Then ‘better’ can come later. I do not care about ‘better’ when what we have, right now, is no results. No results is boring. It is repeating the same, boring, played out arguments over and over again for an eternity. Look around this philosophy forum and actually tell me how many people here say something new, OR, even indicate that this is a capability of their very physiological biology! Man produces. This is fundamental character. If he cannot, then he dies. Nature proves this fact for us. Anything or anyone that becomes completely useless (to society) is stripped away from the bone, left to rot and die.
No, failed genetics set against a basic, archetypical standard. What is that standard? Is it not death?
Woah woah woah, hold on there, buster. Solipsism neither is an ontology or an epistemology. Solipsism ignores the existential status of ‘otherness’. In fact, Solipsism eventually claims that ‘another’ cannot exist. This is why Solipsism is a tautology, not an ontology.
That maybe true, but, your previous assertion (the previous portion to your passage) needs revision, or so it seems.
Good, then why did you wait until now to spit this out? You could have participated first, as Anonymous and Gib have done. Hmm.
Very interesting, indeed! Well, it looks like we have a real thinker on our hands here folks! I applaud your original insight. Perhaps you can implore others to participate in a fair exchange for this potential knowledge. Do you not see the utility for this thread, our Hyper Philosophy, now?
I disbelieve that most people who would call themselves, “philosophers”, are that well versed in logic to understand the difference between a contradiction and a paradox, anyway. Contradictions have logical values insofar as they establish a basis of certainty, under every implication of statements by/in/through logic. That, indeed, is very valuable. But, as far as prejudices go? I am not so certain that I share your discontent here.
That is a good idea, but, already implied by the existence of a question, inherent by/through doubt. This is a priori logic : inherent, implied statements. What is already meant by a question must be understood before the question takes place, or can become asked. Thus, questions are necessarily limited impositions upon another, statements which force an impression, no matter what. There is my retort to your newer idea.
I privilege inequality, revenge, and impatience. But not equality.
If you do not produce, then you cannot participate in a Hyper Philosophy. The very definition here, that we have setup, is one which excludes the notion of holding back. You must, at least, limp into the pot. This is a (poker) game of forced stakes. I propose this because too many have gotten away with huge wins without taking a risk. We need to nail some feet to the floor, make it so blood is spilled, a win-lose type of game rather than win-win for everybody. I am tired of win-win. I want win-lose or lose-lose.
My points still stands. If you NEVER produce, then, what good are you to yourself or anybody? Some leeching is necessary, yes. But that does not dissuade my thread here; it does not knock anything off course. You want to know what a leech is? It is an infant sucking on his mothers swollen tits. But, that does not mean that the infant will grow up to produce anything, to “affirm values or life” as you Nietzscheans would put it. Some, or, strike that, almost everybody in our globalized world are raised into leeches from birth to death. What does a man produce in this world? Work? That may be something. War? That may be something. Ideals, results, science??? That may be worth talking about, but, no more freebies. If a philosophy can become productive, which I see no reason why it cannot, then let us push the ball forward and ignore everybody else stuck in the previous millenniums. If anybody gets in our way, then they can get rolled over by our weight and momentum.
I did not ask for any “full” range, just a taste from any so called thinker on this website/forum. If people do not contribute, then why should they stay? They are just leeching. But how many WILL plagiarize without this payback, this production of new wisdom, knowledge, or insight? Far too many, that is my main point here. That is why I create Hyper Philosophy, to more quickly separate out the weak from the strong, the inferior from the superior. It forces a testing, a fast testing, a constant testing, under enormous peer pressure. It accumulates, speeds up, evolves. If a vast majority of a philosophical community cannot adapt, then, they should be cut out of the loop somehow. Let their words, and ideas, speak for themselves.
Production will be the standard, the bottom line. What are you saying new or original? What are you saying powerfully? What are you asserting?
What is YOUR POINT? (I am not asking you, as you already have made a few points. I am just stating these questions rhetorically, for others.)
For me. For you. For anybody who wants it. For anybody as thirsty as I am.
You may not, depending on your ability to philosophize. Does a painter know when he paints? Does a painter know when he finishes a painting??
Yes, we can start with statements. If people are forced into making statements, then they become forced into accounting for themselves. Next, we impose a forced responsibility for them, on their words, on their statements. You force people into accountability, by the very presence of their being there. They came to a philosophy forum. Now, they can be held accountable for their contributions, or lack thereof. This is measured by statements, first, and products, second. Results come later, down the road, depending on objective standards interlocking with subjective standards. But that is beside the point.
Ideological development. As a physicist develops empirical formulas to predict multidimensional occurrence, a philosopher develops a (STRICT) ideology. If you cannot, then, you do not belong on a philosophy forum, do you?? I am seriously wondering about this.
Measured by statements, yes. We can measure statements. Capitalize your first word. Use a period. Statement. It is not difficult, is it?
The process is of secondary importance. As a hyper philosophy, we do not so much concern ourselves with how we got here rather than we already are here, up to this current point in time. This is not to say the former is UNIMPORTANT, because, it is very important. But, there is no results in a continual, ongoing process. We need to make some divisions, to make some cuts in our paper. Otherwise, nothing gets done, ever. Should philosophy be about continual masturbation until the end of time, stroking ourselves until all our hairs go gray? That is some people’s take on philosophy, not mine. I am into forcing people to become accountable for the words they speak, or type, under this context.
I disagree. What more is there to life than giving and taking, fuse?? Love, perhaps? That sounds idealistic.
And so it shall be. Just because one inquires, does not mean one also does not produce results, a wisdom, or a knowledge. Because one does. Inquiry is not in vain as it displaces vanity itself.
Why do you and Silhouette continue to insist that this is about “unchecked” preconceived notions??? I said nothing about critique here. Critique is implied, err, mandated by a Hyper Philosophy. It is about constant testing. That is the check! You contradict your own understanding here, in the same reply. Is hyper philosophy so unreal that you cannot understand the need and immediacy of the production implied by thinking?? Is it so far fetched?
I place the emphasis on questions AND answers. Why cannot a philosopher do both? Why should he not become held accountable for either??? He should. And he shall.
Out with the old, in the with new. This is the 21st Century, Fuse!
That is true, but, hyper philosophy can extend (in power) to include the oldest and most profound questions as well. That depends on the output produced, of course.
My sentiment exactly. This is about hyper extending that “best bet”, to make it much much bigger.
Why not? That seems like a brash and bold move, as a statement. When all controversies are resolved, I say, the most creativity naturally takes place to create and impose new problems. Man creates problems just as well as he solves them. Otherwise philosophy could not exist in the first place.