LOL, I like your style.
Is your question even ‘real’ to begin with when you do not know if you know the answer ahead of time?
Bye.
here we go again 
Does that work as a scarecrow?
Here you expose yourself: confronted with what you were looking for, you go on to explain why it was satisfying and remove all doubt that you are primarily concerned with utility. Not that this wasn’t so obvious from the start with your insistence on tangible results. I applaud you for being able to actually recognise me as I am, but you remove yourself from me with your method of recognising. One is revealed as common when one thinks in terms of practical advantage and results - they show an affinity towards a shared general goal (use). It is the notable of us who lose interest in this connective desire, because it consistently fails to stimulate - they are the ones who stray towards new thoughts. They see knowledge and creativity as intrinsically pleasing, an end in itself without requiring a use to bind it to others so that it may be verified in this way. Utility here is more of an accident. The amount of noise you make appeals to the common, however your unwillingness to fit within their social norms of etiquette appeals to the notable. Perhaps you wish to act as this bridge - as would be backed up by your sincere desire for something new over something familiar?
What makes most people on this forum common is that they seek a kind of social catharsis in intellectual form. Whatever suffering has demanded that they turn to the solace of serious mental problem solving has made them frustrated, and made them desire to use this forum as a channel to express their frustration by attacking with arguments and refusing to find agreement so that their frustrated expression may be exacerbated and prolonged. Others are much more conspicuous in their aims of social acceptance, forming arguments so that they may be verified by like minds. Ability to arouse attention is what marks either.
This is consistent with your melodramatic appeal, clearly in contemporary society it’s pretty difficult to die. Social democracy in developed nations has more than just a few safety nets from the dangers of death due to lack of production. Widespread boredom is pretty symptomatic of this removal from impending death. The avatism and persistent re-emergence of those who stray from utility is surely enough to prove that utility isn’t the only preference of natural selection.
Nietzsche consistently appeals to genetic factors, or fate at least, contributing to the desire and ability to acquire power.
It is a tautological epistemology, which can then be taken as an ontology. The derivation of Solipsism is the noun form of the self being by itself, the definition is that this is all that can be known about existence. The knowing aspect of this is epistemological, taking what you know to be the only arbiter of being is a further step that can be taken that makes it ontological. What makes it tautological is that when one assumes that knowable experience is only experienced by the self (and nothing else), and so the self (and nothing else) is all that experiences knowable experience.
The attitude towards tautology being flawed because it is necessarily true is purely indicative of contemporary tastes desiring a mystery that by definition must be perpetually unsolvable. Thereby it creates requirements that necessary truths must be falsifiable (there must be doubt) if something is to be considered scientifically valid.
And you wouldn’t - you seek utility. Consistency has been preferred thus far because philosophy has sought unity - this is metaphysics. A uniting truth has been sought that could bring knowledge together. Utility desires principles that unite a group of people towards a certain goal. If one was not as rigid in this search, one might discover the value in contradiction, because one was not so intent on finding unity.
The idea is meant to show a priori logic - that one desires doubt in a question so that one may artificially rediscover an answer for satisfaction. The intention is to discover a form of question that may prolong the frustration of inquiry, to make the satisfaction of the answer that more relieving. The process of answering the question is to expound it, the answer is what is found when the tension here is released.
This is PROFOUNDLY refreshing.
Matthatter, I implore you to cohere to the OP, or, make a point as others have already done in this thread. How is that for a strawman.
Have I? I suppose it should be a matter of time before the truth of oneself is publicly revealed. Yet, I do not feel that exposed.
Utility with respect to Knowledge, yes.
It was not my initial contention to act as a ‘bridge’ between the two, but, I suppose you may see it that way as you desire. But you fundamentally are correct in your exposition. I seek something new over something familiar. It is my experience that reifies what the common (philosopher, or just any common man) seeks is commonality and social commune in general. That is not what I am after here. Rather, I meld my desire (for power) with that of the common, ensuring a pragmatic relationship between the two, one that demands and enforces reciprocity, a mutual interaction. This way I can castigate those who are ignorant apart from those who are knowledgeable. Similarly, I can discriminate those who are ignoble apart from those who are noble. Within the exact same context! Not only do I impose this, as a standard, but then my attempt here is to further drive the wedge by prejudicing those (who are common) against those who fail to cohere to a principle, one designed to produce new ideals, new thoughts, new knowns. This is a necessary fact. My motivations are thusly open to the public. But the method I impose is more subtle than that, one that requires an advanced intellect to understand and take advantage of. Basically, I am looking for strength (of argument) over weakness. Hyper philosophy ensures this, as I see it.
Brilliantly stated.
You should first know that I meant to imply a more fundamental conception of exclusion, one that must be genetic by its nature. I am specifically talking about death in the form of lacking consummation, to reproduce. This is widespread and consistent within an American paradigm. As I know of it, a vast population of males overbearingly fail to consummate relationships. There are biological and sociological reasons for this. But, that aside, death is genetic failure, as the definition is commonly understood.
In this context, you are incorrect. It is very easy “to die” with accordance to genetic, evolutionary theory. Many people are dying insofar as they cease upward (genetic) mobility, forget about social mobility. Boredom becomes a non issue, or, one that only indirectly relates to this point. Therefore, I disagree with your conclusion from my vantage point. Utility is maintained, by a social organism. What is naturally selected, then, as I see it, is an ability to produce, or reproduce, or procreate new ideals. This leads to deeper ideals of my own, new thoughts with respect to memetic evolution, and how ideals evolve over time (such as predominant religions for example, Christianity or Nietzscheanism, as I see it). Hyper philosophy becomes an immediate necessity, one that enforces selection to become applied to thought itself. There do exist ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ideals, or in other words, ideals which can get you killed dead, or ideals which can keep you living long and prosperous, spreading your memetic and genetic wealth.
Yes, fate indeed. I strictly am speaking of power as a physical function. Here shall be another contribution to my thread, to hyper philosophy.
Power is the ability to recognize and project Change, resulting in an a secondary cognitive ability to predict events before they occur/manifest.
Instinct is a subsidiary insight contrasted to this. Now if you call me unoriginal, then I would slap you, lol! Nobody has ever stated this before, or anything even close to it. I put myself out on this line, here.
See, there I disagree with your rhetorical evaluation, all that can be “known about existence”. You switch Self for Existence and then project the former, not the latter. I view this as a logical error, on your part, or worse, an inability for you to recognize others as selves, as autonomous agents.
That is true, but, I sense the failure in your thinking in the previous premises. While you can contend the epistemological point on either ground, the ontological versus tautological division precludes it. Episteme, as a concept, can become excluded. Again, if I did not already ask you this question, then what makes you believe that Solipsism is Ontological? I apologize if you already answered this a first time, but I might have forgotten or missed your point.
Wonderful reasoning! You are correct! There is a value in tautology, in this way. But, is not tautology essentially against philosophical principles? You already mentioned the devaluation of contradiction by our common philosophers. Do you have more in this reasoning? You do make a convincing appeal for tautological worthiness. Something along the lines of, “All truths are self evident amongst men.” Truth is self evident, and thus, tautological. But you seem to be going about this from an opposite direction that most thinkers engage. Admirable, but also, dangerous.
Incorrect, I seek knowledge, as you apparently do too. But I am carving out an ulterior path, made apparent by your and my contrary directions. Enforcing utility is my path towards this.
Indeed! And do you realize that you effectively separate philosophy from metaphysics in this very manner of speaking!? Many metaphysicists believe they are philosophers, when, they apparently are not. Just the converse is true, philosophy precedes even metaphysics. It has two, otherwise it would become impossible for a philosopher to produce knowledge. Metaphysicists do the exact opposite. They make knowledge impossible, and then, imply the truth to their own premises! You should consider dividing the two, philosophers against metaphysicists. You may find that many of the latter pretend to be the former. This effectively cuts off many from, “philosophy proper”, as I would put it.
I see, but, you maybe missing my lust for division. My method for utility is overwhelmingly biased. I state this. I state this so clearly that people cannot miss it, but, they do. They do because they cannot refrain from that unification ideal, as you put it. My utility presupposes a goal, knowledge. Yet, I say nothing about sharing knowledge, per se. I am here to usurp knowledge, to bask in its glory and reaffirming value, not to share it with anyone. This sets me apart from this crowd, divides me, as it does everyone else. Those who deny this in themselves also deny their own unifying rhetoric in the process. My view of hyper philosophy breaks this all apart. It enforces these divisions, and puts pressure against that very unifying principle, by play utility against those who presume to work for it, for others. No, I say it is selfish, even solipsistic at some point. I even made a thread in the social sciences subforum before creating this thread, about that very issue.
I see! Very brilliant of you! But, I will state that there is more to doubt than the fulfillment of desire. Doubt is about fear, at its core. Perhaps this is why people attempt to unify themselves into a, “greater oneness” or “with God”, in the first place. They realize their weakness compared to a stronger. They seek solace through a cosmic retribution, an equation with strength, an equation they never seem to muster or fathom. The weak intrinsically are weaker, in their very thinking, as a result. The pursuit for ‘God’ reaffirms the truth of this position, God not coincidentally, appearing as a being or entity that either cannot become doubted, or Himself, does no doubt anything, ever. His Certainty is His Spirituality, so to speak.
Very adept summation. But where does this point fit in with your previous expositions? I fail to see the connection.
Let’s see if you can answer your own question (of “Since when did a philosopher blah blah…”). 
Oh, you didn’t answer your own question.
So, according to your own (a bit silly) assertion, [size=150]“your philosophy is FAILED”![/size] 
If that were true, there would be no such thing as religion. When I say that people take ideas seriously, I mean that they believe what they are taught (so long as it comes from a recognized authority). They may not be intelligent or independent minded enough to carry on a rational discussion of these ideas, which is probably what you’re getting at, but they do tend to believe in them.
I’m not sure a community of philosophers and similar thinkers are going to want to take that risk.
Let me ask you: do you believe in progress? If you do, you won’t get far by destroying all traces of good ideas layd down by thinkers of the past. Progress is based on accumulated wisdome, not simply a random recycling or tossing out of ideas that have seen their day. Even bad ideas serve a purpose in being preserve - so that we know what not to take seriously.
But your system would work against that. The only ideas thinkers would take seriously would be their own. Taking seriously someone else’s ideas would be, to use your words, clinging to a life raft, whereas the creator of the idea, to prevent this, would “coat himself in oil”.
And how do the “strong minded” regard each other and the ideas passed around among them?
Nietzsche, Darwin, Hitler, others here on ILP. I don’t know if I can say it’s exactly the same - I really do believe all ideas are unique even if that’s to an infinitesimal degree - but your idea certainly doesn’t jump out as “special” in any significant way. If you really want to make an impression, I think you’ll need to flesh it out quite a bit… and even then, that doesn’t touch on the truth of your claim.
Philosophers, real philosophers, always could answer their questions, so the answer is : since forever. Now, the wannabes expose themselves by this inability.
You need to recognize the difference between a statement and a question.
Again, my statements were not posed as questions. And you need to pay to play, here. You limp in. You contribute first, before asking to see another’s hand.
I do not see any contributions by Nah. Perhaps this may change, someday. I already called Anonymous bluff. He folded. What will you do?
I thought I was supposed to “say something, new, fast, move on to the next topic”. If you want to actually discuss philosophy, there are plenty of threads here where philosophy is discussed.
Wrong, Gib, because people believe and take seriously religious myths, such as reincarnation, invisible sky men, and angels/demons. People seriously believe these superstition. This is counterintuitive and the exact opposite to what my point was. How, in the hell, can any ‘normal’ or ‘common’ person take fairy tales seriously, that Santa Clause comes into your home on Christmas Eve, while on the other hand, they do not even listen/read/respect Gib’s epistemological theses on human cognition? How do you reconcile this fact, Gib? You just dodged the issue. You presume people take most things seriously. I disagree. You seem to hold (most) people high intellectual regard. I do not share in your (naive) luxury. I know, for a fact, that (most) people do not take philosophy seriously, at all. Otherwise you would see much more progression at such (philosophical) forums. This does not occur, in fact, just the opposite. Everybody turns threads into fun and games. I use a different method, here. I force seriousness, and then offer a metaphor (the game of poker) as an alternative understanding. This refrains those who are not serious, about philosophy, life, or really anything anymore, from interluding into more productive conversations.
The establishment of a belief system is different than the context of this thread, is it not?
Yes, and abiding by an authority figure. These thoughts or beliefs are not owned by the minds that possess them. They are viral infections. This is what becomes self defeating in philosophy.
Any good philosopher must take the risk, because, otherwise his philosophies are withheld in limbo. Without communication, what good is a philosophy to begin with? This is about communicating good philosophy to good adherents, but not to anybody in between. Hyper philosophy is the result : separation, to put on display who can contribute, who can respond, and who can recognize the intellectualizing of crucial and/or original concepts.
Individual progress? Yes. Social progress? Not so much, social progress does not concern me.
Yet, this is our current state, Gib … just about everybody I meet and approach randomly recycles, repeats, and tosses out which of their favorite philosophical authorities said what, in what context, when, and where. It is as if you cannot say anything unless a philosopher had said it before. I destroy this latent mechanism with hyper philosophy. The old tomes do not apply to the 21st Century anymore. How can you disagree? Look around you. Who produces??? This is about now, not the past, not the dead.
No, Gib, you misunderstand the context I already have laid out. I am saying, to those who enter this game, and lay their stakes on the table, they have a lot to win or lose. Players can respect players. But those on the sidelines need to quit receiving pay-outs, just for watching. That is what I am getting rid of. That is the point. People supposedly come to philosophy websites, “to learn,” at least, that is what they tell me. But then what kind of education system is this? Who are the teachers??? Why must they work for nothing? Can they, at the very least, not recognize each other in open public? Can they at least afford some kind of (philosophical) recognition? This separates those who can participate apart from those who cannot, those who can teach apart from those who forever will be a follower, a student, a religious disciple. Both are necessary, to some degree, but, it is time to place a severe penalty on the latter. No more thinking that anybody can waltz into a philosophical discussion, with stupid or nonsensical bullshit, believing they are the cock of the walk because they said, “You are wrong!” and no, they will not state why, or why not, and then they drag a then-serious conversation down the toilet.
Hyper philosophy side steps this issue. You put your chips in first, before the play begins. That way, only the players who risk something can gain/lose from the full schemata of the game.
With recognition at least, with respect at most? I don’t know. How do you regard the others around you who put something on the table? Silhouette has gone great lengths to produce something new and original. You put out one statement. He raised you. I raised you. Can you keep up? Or will you fold under pressure, under analysis, as Anon has?
Incorrect, Nietzsche, Darwin, and Hitler were not philosophers per se. Nietzsche was a proselytizer, Darwin was an bioontological scientist, and Hitler was an Aryan fascist dictator. Were any of them physical theorists? No, therefore they were missing a crucial piece toward the ends of becoming a recognized wise man, a philosopher. If you cannot produce a physical theorem, a proof for your statements, then how can even you know the truth of your own claims? I say one cannot. Then I apply pressure onto everybody’s claims. It is rather easy.
So I say nothing special? You, as Silhouette has done, both attempted to liken me to other thinkers. You said, I pull my ideas from Nietzsche, Darwin, HItler, and others here on ILP. I know, for a fact, you are incorrect. Because I sourced my ideas. I recorded where I got them from. And they produced my subsequent statement, which I applied to my previous post, in response to Silhouette’s inquiry : “Power is the ability to recognize and project Change, resulting in a secondary cognitive ability to predict events before they occur/manifest.” Nobody that I know of can produce statements such as these, just me. Do you want to know why? Certainty! There is a certain sense of certainty one receives when an individual digs out the roots of his foundation, and precisely knows the materials that underlie them. I already have done this. This is why my words are different from others, the presumed aire of certainty. I can back up my claims, but, then this puts pressure on others to do the same.
Do you want to call my bluff? Are you ready to call me on this hand? First you need to call, and match what Silhouette and I raised into the pot.
That is true.
First you tell me about ontology and metaphysical science. It is your turn around the table, I believe. After that, ask away toward my propositions. You want to talk about power? I am waiting and willing.
Anony, you stated, “Ontology supervenes because there is no escape.”
That really states nothing, especially nothing new. Supervenes upon what? Why? Where is there? Escape from what? Why not an escape? Your secondary statement is so vague that it really doesn’t mean anything. I may as well state, “Ontology supervenes because tacos, nachos, salsa.” It doesn’t mean anything. Therefore it is nothing. And on another note, I do not think you are serious about your contribution.
If you are holding an ace up your sleeve, then, by all means, play it. I am willing to let it fly.
This isn’t a very fun game. And you’re not even quoting me correctly. That takes real talent given the length of my statements.
I apologize to you, anon. Here is your quote.
If you desire to reify it, then, let me know. We can wait for you to expound this definition next round, perhaps. No hard feelings?
My feelings aren’t usually hard.
Reify it? What do you mean?
I mean : turn your meaning and statement into a philosophical effigy, a construct of your own intelligence and imagination.
Perhaps wikipedia (Reification) would shed more light on this definition for you, than I can.
I know what reification means, but I still can’t tell what you mean.
Reification derives from the Latin for ‘thing’, and just means ‘making tangible’, like a thing. He’s just using a fancy word to say ‘give something solid to work with’: a definite theory or practice.
That’s because, amongst the majority, thinking in terms of utility and practical advantage is the norm. Shame seems to come from feeling on the ‘deemed to be wrong’ side of the majority and their current judgments on utility and practical advantage. It’s through this unavoidable shame of being different that one learns to reacquire power in other new ways, and thus these notable who follow this path learn pride like no commoner can ever know.
Your approach is fairly unique in its uncommon crudity, but it still exudes a huge deal of common appeal. One who is used to unattractive social abrasion because they were different would avoid forums. You come on here to express a desire for involvement and the rallying together of an exclusive kind of social group towards a unifying end (a unifying division?). Anyone not seeking social involvement could come here and be right at home with all the lack of unifying practical progress and the abundance of hostility. As for me, I come here to learn how to translate my ideas into something communicable with the intellectual common. I already know they’re unique, so no confirmation or collective inspiration sharing is needed, only the experience in how to communicate my inspiration. Someone like you is interesting to me, because you know something of the common and the exceptional. Afterall, you’re still troubled and disillusioned by the majority who are somehow unable to create anything new, and therefore your troubled relation connects you to them. Your thread is an attempted solution to this.
Clearly, lack of intellectual creativity isn’t needed for the continued reproductive creation of new people. But the injection of intellectual creativity has certainly benefitted the majority of mere maintainers of the species. Death is a genetic inevitability when seen from the scientific perspective. When science attempts to benefit and prolong life, death would be seen as a failure. More broadly, outside of scientific and similar ways of thinking, failure is all relative to how you define success. Science has developed commonly as an extension of commonly held values. To relate to science is to relate to the common - that is to say, the definition of things like death as being a failure. Life simply ticking over and being maintained is a death, only to those who know intellectual creativity. Don’t expect the many-too-many to share your need for inspiration as you know it. Nothing-new has been consistently proven to neither cause premature death nor avoid it. A prosperous life is an idea of the common, but individuals know it only relative to themselves: whether their own version relates to the common idea or not only determines whether they are exceptional or not.
Nietzsche’s philosophy appeals to physical health, in accordance with genetic and sociologically determined fate, to contrast the type of decadence that is facing humanity. You are not the first to appeal to genetics and physicality, and neither was Nietzsche. I would agree with your contribution, but only if it extended to include the ability to recognise the value in and the projection of staying the same, as well. And even then, not as a law. Conservativism can consolidate proven power, where change disrupts this in favour of alternative forms of power that are not necessarily greater, but can be. Do not be demoralised, simply re-evaluate and persevere, but this has been covered before. I ready myself for your slap 
I equate existence, the self, and experience. This is only a logical error insofar as it meets a dissonance with other people telling you that they experience differently to the only way one can experience. For one, this is an error on their part - they don’t know your experience in order to compare ‘their own’ with it, in order to know a difference. All they know is your description of it. All you know is the best of their ability to describe. Solipsism doesn’t deny other people. Other people and your ‘own body’ are just as equally parts of ‘experience’. There is no real possession because there is no experiencable ‘other existence’ to possess relative to. To be an ‘autonomous agent’, one presupposes autonomy relative to an other. My Solipsism is simply rigidly empirical, allowing nothing else besides whatsoever. This is the only way I can remain honest to where knowledge is supposed to come from - this is what makes the stance epistemological. The ontological step is not implied by this, neither does being necessarily come before knowledge - how would you know? Why separate the two anyway?
My pointing out of the value in contradiction is simply a scathing commentary on those who believe they are being utterly consistent. To value falsifiability in the search for improved truth is obviously contradictory, yet is the basis for the entirity of something as serious and glorified as science. My offering of tautology is, in a sense, a mockery of this stupidity. It’s actually consistent.
I share in your attitude to metaphysics to an extent. It is an absolute farce that metaphysicists “make knowledge impossible, and then, imply the truth to their own premises”. This is in line with my proposition that answers are merely reworded questions. However, I don’t claim that philosophy could be any different. In order to create anything, one must hold certain assumptions to be ‘true’ in order to validate what they created as ‘real’ (although this is simply rewording your hidden aspects of the question to reach your answer). A philosopher must be metaphysical.
Your division takes place within your intial involvement. You only then go on to divide once you have involved yourself. ‘Division’ can only be given meaning when juxta posed to ‘indivision’. Before either of those relative concepts emerged, there was my notion of ‘nothing’ that I summarised for you.
The weak pursue God for what reason? Because they seek strength on other grounds. Despite God being ‘beyond mere reality’, the effect of their belief unifies them with hordes of others, giving strength in numbers, united by unquestioned focus. The religious collective are not to be underestimated. Fear can inspire strength just as lack of it can. Again, depends what grounds you hold to be ‘true’ in order to measure things like ‘strength’ and ‘weakness’.
If you felt that way, wouldn’t the easiest and most rational solution just be to, yourself, refuse to read anything that seems to ‘last week’ to you, and leave the rest of us alone with your pronouncements about what ‘we all must do’?
Besides, all you’re describing is modern bullshit pop-culture ethic applied to philosophy. Actually taking a few fucking minutes to sit down and read something written by a previous generation WOULD be a shocking new cutting edge idea that would blow the minds of most people living nowadays, especially most people you’re going to reach on the internet.
What, we should ignore the ideas of ages past and just do/think whatever the first impetuous notion is that flies into our heads? You mean for a change?
But your OP asked for new ideas. I would keep my distance from rotting cheese, so I figured crows probably would as well.
Geez, SORRY.