New ILP Banner In The Works!

Why no niggers or camel jockeys? Why only white trash philosophers? I’m all for equity!

:wink:

.

Women dont really make , or have made good philosophers , we are different that way , women are smart also , but not into thinking philosophically as much as men

.

That’s a bit of a sweeping statement.

A

DOL writes:

Or possibly, the women are busy living philosophy instead of talking about it.

You’re going to make some poor girl miserable! :laughing:

.

Yeh I like sweeping

.

.

I doubt that

If that were true , and you believed it , you would,nt be here

.

erm… what?

if Ayn Rand is in the banner I will stop visiting ILP. Aside from making the mistake of conflating primary and secondary egoism, her entire contribution to Philosophy was simply re-wording of the work of Thomas Reid.

I’ve noticed recently how you have been a sort of archeologist of traditions, GCT. Is this a new thing…finding out who the great philosophers read, so on and so forth?

I find this fascinating and have wanted to know who most influenced Nietzsche other than Schopenhauer. I know so far that Descartes ripped off Anslem, was it, and that Rand is a fraud as well.

Do continue.

Detrop,

Are you familiar with the allegations concerning Nietzsche’s plagiarism of the work of Ralph Waldo Emerson? I have to say, Human, All too Human and the Gay Science both read a lot like Emerson…

Strong Nietzsche influencers, in no particular order: Socrates, Dostoyevksy, Emerson, the Stoics, Spinoza, Goethe, Jesus, Homer, Shakespeare, Sophocles, Schopenhauer, Kant, Heraclitus, Wagner, Dionysus, Luther, Heine, Darwin, Thucydides, Apollo (most any of which could serve as applicants for the banner too, coincidentally :wink:).

As for the reason I’ve resurfaced this thread, I wanted to mention I think the new banner - where the heck is it, btw? :wink: - should not necessarily use ‘I Love Philosophy’ as its most prominent logo, but rather ILP, since this is what most everyone calls the place anyway. (Sort of like how the swoosh has effectively replaced the text ‘NIKE’ for Nike, the acronym ILP seems to have surpassed the full text in recognizability.) I envision something like:

[size=200]ILP[/size]
[size=75]ilovephilosophy.com[/size]

(if you’ll forgive me and see beyond the utter lack of artwork).

Just my two aesthetic cents.

I dunno - Sagesound, have you got any further with this project?

I also feel moved to reiterate the suggestion here that any forthcoming new banner be included for those of us who use alternate skins, such as Dark Sky.

Please and thanks.

06.09.06.1330

I had been doing some work on an alternate thread, but lately I have been neglecting my progress for other self-interests. One of the main reasons for this was due to a lack of creative motivation (sort of like “writer’s block” for artistry) to fuel what will eventually be an animated version (much like my current sig banner, only with ILP). The last revision posted on the mentioned thread is the image below:

I believe I can account to a renewal of creative motivation if I had some kind of feedback on how this artwork would be implemented; not to mention, why it hasn’t already and if it ever will be. Anotherwords, my motivation to complete a project is proportionate to the site’s willingness to use the finished artwork.

I have recently noticed the alternate skins for ILP and personally do not see a problem of how the finished products would fit with any three of them. (Thank you Daybreak for bringing this to my attention!!!) I am also curious why the Dark Sky skin has not been edited to say I Love Philosophy and not Dark Sky.

sagesound, for some reason, I would vote for the above banner you designed to replace the old one. Except maybe I would suggest a differet enscription instead of “ILP”.

Let me start off explaining fully then derive my suggested enscription later on.

I see there is no issue over ethos raised in coming up with new banners. Maybe if ethos should be abolished on the profound level, it should be emphasised on the superfacial level. People feel nervous and weary without ethos, so let us flag up something that will make this harmless nevertheless effective compliment. Sometimes we have to tolerate a certain vice in order for a certain virtue to work out. “A little vanity is good.” Insofar as morality stays superfacial, it must be propagandised superfacially. Otherwise we have nihilism and general existential chaos for the philosophers, pathological multations for the plummers, et cetera.

Now, let us ask, What is the Ethos of our ILP discussion forums?

BBC decided to label the impression that the title ILP gives out as trashy. This is where we are at a difficult cross road: should we make the banner trashy in accordance with the title in order to declare an anti academic ethos, a free intellectual environment, an everyman symposium? Alternatively, should we make the banner so posh so that Mrs Beckham will feel compelled to join us when she is bored looking after Romeo at Beckingham palace? A posh banner is not altogether in full concordance with a trashy title, but is the banner is really posh, the title will be posh too, polished posh. Perhaps we could use an enscription like this

Philosophy I love, therefore philosopher I am.

Vola. With this explainatory subtitle artistically incorporated on the banner, among the philosophical heads, we reach an ethos that lies beyond trash and even posh. We achieve encompassion. There is something personable about us, yet something reverent, something easy going about us, yet something composed. It is clever yet with grace, passionate yet wise.

Whatever man, just make sure that handsome Nietzsche head is not swapped place with that deplorable torso sqeezed against the right side.

06.15.06.1336

While I would whole-heartedly support your suggested inscription, it still remains something that would be seen on an ad banner: mainly for the reason of space. This banner I’ve been working on could be animated to accomodate such a long line of text; however, some have suggested a non-animated banner would be more suitable for ideal uploading times. While I agree, I do not believe we should not limit ourselves or this site to simple mediums of media. Of course, why bother have the letters “ILP” in the first place when it clearly says ILovePhilosophy.com Discussion Forum right next to the banner?

So… ideally… an animated banner would do just nicely and with that I would be able to implement your suggested inscription fading from black to white lettering of the first part; “Philosophy I love,” fading out to black then back in with white lettering of the second; “ergo philosopher I am!” [size=75](Yeah, I changed that up a little.)[/size]

There is a reason Fritz is larger than anyone else… and under the circumstances I might find it in my better judgement to make him even larger should the opportunity to bump someone off the banner present itself. Unto this, I would find myself dead if I put him before the likes of Derrida. Speaking of whom, I have been wrestling with wether or not he should remain in the banner. I have Marx… would it not be prudent to equally include Smith? [size=75](Marx could agree to that, being so mindful of equality.)[/size]

Disciple of misogyny is more correct. Women tend to be … now let me think more pragmatic, nope, not all. More philisophical, no not all. More into sports, I think not.

Hey all, let us play the hasty generalization fallacy game with the Disciple of lack of enlightenment.

GROWL :unamused: :unamused: :unamused:

Women were not allowed much for many years:

wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/WOMEN.HTM

If the ‘BBC decided to label the impression that the title ILP gives out as trashy’ then we should have a logo something like this :evilfun:

You know, I think Sage is doing a terrific job, and deserves all our thanks for making this a better place, in whatever way. BUT…

Wittgy never looked better, Pax. I think you have really captured him.