Paranoia

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
21

By referring to your founding father as “a guy named Satyr”, you discredit the relative importance Blurry rightly attributes to him.

Yes, that—or with seeing the presumption of those things in another…

Satyr’s opinion of my “obsession” with Nietzsche goes back to not long after 2002, if not to 2001. He started intimating it again here on ILP shortly after I registered, in 2006—though I will admit it started out mild (“intimating”).

I’m not sure I know who Jean is. Anyway, it does not have to be canceled out, as “a philosophy wherein [someone] justifies [something]” is nonsense anyway; to a philosopher, anything and everything is just. After all, “[t]o the god all things are beautiful and good and just, but men consider some things unjust and some just.” (Heraclitus, fragment 102.)

I myself am, by the way, not a pedophile, but at “worst”—though not exclusively—an ephebophile; and rightly so, considering that woman (I’m a heterosexual) tends to attain the peak of her fertility and thereby of her sexual attractiveness to men around the age of 20, and that men evolved a preference for women who do not yet have children before the invention of contraception.

22 
 From the level which this realisation emerges, it is impossible to define either.  It's more like a gut level feeling, of where the criteria for exclusion manifests.  Inclusion is another thing, it"s more approximating current models with which it can be likely compared to. In terms of common sense, inclusion presents almost an un perceivable barrier because of the singular nature of it's subtle difference.
23

Founding father? I founded KTS. Satyr turned up later. As you well know.

You’re all over the place with this “discredit” nonsense, so let’s just leave it there.

Ah, then he knows you longer than I do. You’ll just have to take my word for it though that my opinion of you was arrived at independently by watching you quoting N for years and being unable to hold up under pressure with your own reasoning or lack thereof.
Now, you are a liberal.

Well.

Never mind.

Which is the same as saying nothing is just, which is a non-statement. Typical also that you would defer to an authoritative quotation to provide your reasoning for you.

In the final analysis, it behooves all faggots to finally grow some balls and declare what is right and wrong.

Also that younger women tend to more naive and malleable… which has other implications.

24

How wonderfully vague and non-committal.

Having found a philosophical term to give you some security, do you not demonstrate that very same need for external authority that you did in your prevarications about Mensa?

25

That doesn’t tell me much, beyond that you’re verbose.

So is it like intuition? An animal sense? Instinct? Is there a logical aspect to this at all?

How does a herd identify other herd members? I mean, this must be especially difficult on an online forum of anonymous individuals. How do you sort the general mass of people into in-group and out-group?

26

I did not expressly know that, though it doesn’t really matter. Satyr inspired you to found KTS (“Know ThySelf”!).

Nope, you’ve even admitted to being disingenuous! Referring to him as “a guy named Satyr” is the nonsense here.

It’s not easy holding up under the pressure of a confederacy of dunces. And not quoting does not make you independent. I’m not afraid to refer to someone who has already said what I want to say perfectly. And as for thinking as distinct from saying, I’ve never blindly accepted everything anyone has said, like Cezar does.

Well? “Liberalism” refers to the individual’s freedom from society at large. The philosophers are the freeest individuals, the only wholly free individuals, in this sense: see my “Note on the First Chapter of Leo Strauss’s Final Essay”.

There is no reasoning in an axiom… My reasoning was in my connecting the question of justification to that axiom.

“Connecting all things is Thinking.” (fragment 113.)

Anyway, no, it’s not the same thing. It’s a positive statement.

Everything is right; nothing is wrong.

What implications does your teacher’s teaching that women tend to be more naive and malleable than men have, then? Shouldn’t you seek out the challenge of trying to woo a 47-year old guy?

27

There we go, apaosha.

Having proven my point that you are one of a herd of abductive reasoning fetishists by looking it up and announcing that you do in fact exclusively fetishise abductive reasoning, your fellow clone has gone and demonstrated this theory in practice by abducing that “I have a need for external authority because I find security in a philosophical term”… because I used it.

Too easy.
What typifies your hivemind: Q.E.D. (or maybe Ο.Ε.Δ. as I’m sure you’d all equally prefer).

28

You act like that’s all the dismissers are doing. Stop being silly.

29

Not really.

Joker (who is Tyrannus nowadays) made Zoot Allures (detrop on here)a mod of his old forum. I wasn’t going to put up with that so me, and a few other guys (Jester, MonoExplosion, Ascetic; you don’t know them) including Satyr started KTS. This was 2009.

Enough gossip for you, woman?

Whatever.

There’s only me here, man. Quality versus quantity.

:evilfun:

My point with you quoting N was that that was all you would do. You’d make a post saying blahblah Nietzsche said, then you’d post a large paragraph of N’s and that’d be it. If someone replied to you, you’d do the same.
Point is, you’re kind of an empty vessel channeling N.

What’s so Orwellian in the modern world is that it actually now means the opposite. You worshipped the anti-christian and have now become a modern, secular, humanist drone. You are everything your former idol loathed.

That was all me, I’m afraid.

But wait, there’s more!

Have you considered that your attraction to younger girls has to do with power relations? Do you find that older women, women your own age, do not respect you?

30

Isn’t this itself a fine example of abductive reasoning? Men therefore abductive?

Anyway, what I want to know and what you haven’t yet answered, is in what context I am supposed to be reasoning abductively in such a way that it becomes a part of my character.

Are you trying to suggest that your kind does not abductively reason? That’s absurd.

What else are you doing?

31

My dear, it’s the number of times you used it that suggests a safety blanket to cover those intellectual insecurities.

As I said, just like your toing and froing over Mensa.

32

The other day on animal planet I saw a segment where there was a situation best described as a confrontation between a very hungry coyote and a deer just having given birth to a fawn.

It was in the afternoon someplace inside of Africa. The fawn,just newly born,gives up a very strong odour of after birth. The deer saw the coyote before the coyote saw the deer, but the deer thought hard and fast, and decided to act out of subterfuge. She started running, not too fast, and with an obvious gait, which she knew on some level to be a deception.

The coyote saw the mother deer, but only smelled the fawn. She got confused which way to go.

In her indecision, and consequent confusion, she stood still, wily as she was and observed.

Now the fawn, crouched very low in the surrounding grass, and made itself unnoticeable as best as it could. Then the coyote heard the rustle. And bolted for it.

The cause of the rustle turned out to be a desert rat of some kind, whereby her attention was focused on her devouring the critter.

It’s noteworthy to note that the fawn was just born, with a noticeable, and smelly after birth.

They in a sense knew what to do, both the deer and her offspring, in a moment of existential despair.

Instinct may be more effective than we give it credit for, and, selectivity and choice more of an automatic response than we think.

This is kind of out of sequence, but it is reference to the instinctual feeling as determenitive in quality selection in lieu of inclusion/exclusion within the enclosing meaning, of defining such in terms of likeness or diferrance.

33

No.

Your group of clones is typified by an exclusive fetish for abductive reasoning does not mean that “my kind” (whatever that is) does not abductively reason.
Jeez, is your collective understanding of logic really this bad?

Right.

So frequency of mention is determined by “safety blanket to cover those intellectual insecurities”.
Frequency of mention can also be determined by frequency of instances of applicability.

34

Apo…shhhhhhh.

35

So you are saying it is impossible for me, for example, to engage in deductive or inductive reasoning? Me being an exclusive abductive fetishist.

I guess the other 2 just don’t get me hot, girl. Aw yiss, some abductive bootay.

Perhaps you’ll do some more somersaults and retract that “exclusive” caveat. We’ll see.

Shit… smears.

36

Ah, including Satyr! Your founding big brother, then.

Too much for you, apparently…

We weren’t talking about here (now). And in any case, Satyr or a clone of his is here now, too, though thus far he has spared me the confrontation with him…

It’s understandable that it would seem that way to sloppy readers, but I’ve always quoted him functionally—that is to say, as functional to what I wanted to communicate. To be sure, though, often enough what I wanted to communicate was what Nietzsche was saying; much of my work has been Nietzsche scholarship. But right making must be based on right knowing.

Nope, for I mean the opposite of what “it actually now means”. It’s ironic that you see that but that you don’t see what that means. My political philosophy is Classical, religious, and suprahumanist (though one may call it humanist in the sense that for me, only the “superhuman” is truly human).

Satyr doesn’t teach that? Anyway, it doesn’t change the implications.

Well, to be sure, younger women or girls tend to be less likely to disrespect someone for not having made a career, achieved social success, etc. The thing, however, is that I don’t care about such things and therefore do not derive my self-respect from them or from being respected for them by others. I respect myself inasmuch as I’m a philosopher.

37

What instances?

You used it as a generalization, without specific references as this would lead you into having to debate particular points on certain subjects which, as an aloof liberal you find distasteful and beneath you, but which in reality frighten you and you don’t want to deal with. You just found a more feminine and oblique way of calling us racists, sexists, homophobes, etc…

38

In the ILP post on KTS I am referred to in sexist and racist terms by more than one KTSer, so many over there need to resort to derogatory terms and insults whilst discussing me - rather than be insulted it gave me bear jokes… much to Satyr’s dismay :wink:

39

Instances such as these.

… just keep posting for more.

40

The fact that you take it personally demonstrates an inability to rise above the emotional.

Should a white person in the antebellum south have been shocked to hear blacks refer to him in derogatory terms? No, one must keep things in perspective.
You insist upon doing the bidding of your white liberal masters, then you should expect the flack that comes with the territory. The alternative, and more genuine course for you, is to stop serving these liberal ideals.