It reminded me of other comments made by Blurry suggesting that a guy called Satyr is behind various users here who… I dunno, they have a certain style, maybe a certain position on some subjects? What is the criteria?
How does the hivemind here detect an intruder? What are the signifiers?
Beyond that, what motivates a group to see in every stranger similarities to this person?
Is there really a recurring pattern here, or is this something else? And if the latter, what?
Since it has been established that there is such a thing as philosophycal psychology, I dare say recurrence threads on the paranoia of semiotics in such a way, as to make an analogy between similarity and dissimilarity in the usage of language.
Nietzsche too, induced through exclusion of dissimilarity, rather than inclusion through similarity. Recurrence is a reaction of the excluded: which in turn presents the mistaken pattern that in fact, the person is similar in such and such a way.
Dissimilarity is differance from the average deviation, not the particular. The pattern is de constructed.
Now to bring back that same individual, which has been changed by the deconstruction, and re assimilate him on the basis of this similar paradigm, is a uselessly tempting endeavour.
It’s not a big mystery. There’s a whole pack of racist sexist trolls who use bad arguments, and a ton of hot air, and a substantial number or diversions and personal insults to try and get the same…tired…reaction out of people. The whole position is just an immaculate facade to cover up the simplicity of what’s actually being said. There’s nothing interesting about it. Whether or not the person regurgitating it this time around is or isn’t the exact same dude is kind of irrelevant.
It may not be interesting, below the level of interest or it's opposite, there is that grey area which is neglected and eventually forgotten by rote. It's real simple, yes, but the importance lies in what took place to make it so. We all have to stand our ground one way or another, after all, we are our own final arbiters, and if we fail, well the consequences are known to be anything but desirable.
So it could be that what is labeled as “Satyr-like” or “KTS-like” here is in fact a spirit or psychology manifested through philosophy which induces a particular reaction among the members of ILP, irrespective of the subjects relation to Satyr or my forum.
Could you expand on a definition of this similarity/dissimilarity? Again, what are the criteria? How do you define what is similar to you or the prevailing sensibility here and how do you define what is dissimilar to that?
So, does dismissing an argument with convenient labels like sexist or racist mean that you refuted the others points and destroyed his positions, or does this on the other hand imply that you might be close-minded, dogmatic and terrified that the system you are invested in, emotionally, psychologically, philosophically or otherwise may be flawed?
Do you think that there are things, interesting or otherwise, that should not be discussed, viewpoints that by definition mean that their holders are evil?
Come on, don’t feign ignorance by referring to the still active founder of your forum, whose longest-running pseudonym is “Satyr”, as “a guy called Satyr”.
I find it petty how all you “autonomous individuals” from KTS tend to troll by pretending that anyone who’s not like you belongs to the “group” of “girls”, “the hivemind”, etc.
Having said that, all I will tell you about my detection of Satyr, Cezar, realunoriginal, etc. is that it’s intuitive. And no, I don’t mean “intuition” in the superstitious, “womanly” sense. It’s simply subconscious sensing. And like conscious sensing, it’s not infallible.
I distinguish different ranks between the guys mentioned, by the way. I usually detect someone like realunoriginal who then indeed turns out to be him. The thing is, it doesn’t matter to me whether it’s really him; all I need to detect is that it’s someone of his level of intelligence and therefore of no real interest to me. Satyr is significantly more intelligent. I’m pretty sure Sabina was Satyr, by the way.
“To improve the style: that means to improve the thought, and nothing else.” (Nietzsche, from heart.)
What are “we” such that you recognise a difference? And what are you, who are here to comment on it?
That’s the question I asked in this thread but no one has yet answered it.
I don’t know who Cezar is. Realunoriginal was Purple Dragon on KTS till a few months ago when he disappeared. Sabina was Lyssa from KTS for the most part. Yes, she is a real person.
Of course, there are others I keep an eye out for as well, with their own tells.
But since you group these together, can you give me a reason for why you see a similarity between them?
You know my opinion of your obsession with Nietzsche. An iconoclast worshipper is what you are. Paradoxical and rather pathetic.
In my quote of you? The clue is in where you say “I presume”.
For everything else?
I have done you the courtesy of answering your question. Now do me the courtesy of looking at your own posts and figuring it out for yourself, or do you need me to hold your hand?
I don’t need to pardon you for your need to discredit others—e.g., Blurry—or your love of trolling.
If that’s the question you asked, then the “yous” in this your latest formulation of it must be plural. With that, however, you’re not addressing me, as I’m not plural, majestic though I may be.
Anyway, I’ve already answered the first part of your latest formulation of it with “you” interpreted as singular. You (not the same “you”) are those who arrogate autonomy, individuality, manliness, etc. to yourselves and deny those things on the part of anyone you don’t recognise as being like you in that fundamental respect—which includes anyone who fundamentally opposes you, whether they be above you or beneath you. How shall I put this flatteringly? You are those who love honour above all else…
Indeed: for the most part. I’m pretty sure “she” was in part Satyr, though. And in any case, she emulates Satyr. Maybe she just does that really quite well.
Cezar is not from KTS, which by the way is why I centered him in my list. He, too, is a banned ILP user with recurring sockpuppets, though.
See the last thing I just said about Cezar.
Ironically, that’s not your own original opinion, but Satyr’s. And, in your own words, you know my opinion of your obsession with Satyr…
It seems to me that Satyr has recently become a (more explicit) Nazi. I find that interesting because I’ve been there—in fact, it was I who pointed him out to one of the two or three most intelligent Nazis I know, who then contacted him and seems to have influenced him in the manner indicated. I’ve been there but I no longer want to go back to pre-Socratic Greece, back to illiberalism; I now see Socrates not as the beginning of the end but as the end, namely the peak, of the beginning—the Western beginning of (Western) liberalism. I am now an extreme liberal: I see the root of fascism even in mothers’ witch hunts of pedophiles, for example. If a philosopher is a pedophile, a woman, a Jew, a homosexual, and/or any other thing Satyr contemns, he’s still absolutely superior to any non-pedophile male Aryan heterosexual non-philosopher!
Yes indeed.
Is that to be my example of “abductive reasoning”?
Your answer to my question in the OP is that people of the sort who are confused for Satyr practice “abductive reasoning”. In terms of what context this is practised, you say all contexts… though I offered you a few examples to choose from so we could narrow it down and get a clearer definition of what you are suggesting. You want to be a bit vague and cover all the angles. I get that.
I’d like a better example in order to understand you better.
Stay with me now, girl. Hold on tight.
Is it possible for anyone to gain perfect, absolute certainty from a conception based on reasoning? Or must we discard any conclusion that is not such an absolute?
Are not most conclusions derived in uncertainty?
Perhaps she discredited herself with paranoid accusations re the subject of this thread.
Thank you, dishonourable one.
Then you are asserting that the dissimilarity that is recognised is to do with seeing autonomy, individuality and manliness in an other. How interesting.
In fact it is.
My opinion of you goes waaaaaay back, before Joker’s forum even. To at least 2008.
Also interesting.
The aspect of being a philosopher would then make a pedophile superior to a “non-pedophile male Aryan heterosexual non-philosopher”?
I see… and if this pedophile philosopher (I vaguely remember you being associated with Jean, is that right?) formulated a philosophy wherein he justified the rape of children would you still regard him as superior? Or would him participating in the act of philosophy cancel that out?
Ok, sis! I’ll hold your hand tight just like you asked!
Not just “practice”, you make it sound occasional. As I said, the fetish is almost exclusive - I’ll add in that qualifier in case you pull out of your ass some obscure instance of any of you interchangeable fellows using reasoning of a slightly more substantial kind.
Ah yes, therefore abductive reasoning is all have anyway - well argued.
So, we can conclude that in a universe where absolute knowledge of reality is impossible, any conclusions must be arrived at through incomplete knowledge.
That does not seem unreasonable to me. In fact it seems to me that abductive reasoning should by necessity be part of any thinking person’s repertoire.
