Philosophy ILP style

[WendyDarling]

@iambiguous

Point 6:

@phyllo

Every philosophical problem has to have one optimal or one rational answer.

First, we’ll need a context of course.

How about someone here noting a philosophical problem that is of particular interest to them.

You, perhaps?

So, in your view, does this problem have an optimal or an only rational resolution? Is it, perhaps, yours?

Okay, let’s hear it.

Me?

Well, I make what I construe to be an important distinction here.

Is it a problem that revolves basically around interactions in the either/or world? A problem where a solution can be either found or not found? And then in fact is or is not found?

Or is it moral conflict? The resolution of which I root in the existential intertwining of identity, value judgments and political economy. Or is it a problem that may well revolve around an either/or resolution, but is so staggeringly vast that [so far] no mere mortal has seemed to arrive at it. For example, why something and not nothing? Why this something and not another something? Is human will free? Is there a definitive answer regarding an understanding of the existence of existence itself?

Topic: On/Off. What is binary choice?

Sorry, nothing as trivial as you’d hoped, Biggums.

I’ll start a thread inspired by Dan.

[iambiguous]

@WendyDarling

Topic: On/Off. What is binary choice?

Sorry, nothing as trivial as you’d hoped, Biggums.

I’ll start a thread inspired by Dan.

Okay, but I should warn you: As little respect as you have for my own trivial intelligence, I have at least ten times less respect for yours.

[WendyDarling]

@iambiguous

@WendyDarling

Topic: On/Off. What is binary choice?

Sorry, nothing as trivial as you’d hoped, Biggums.

I’ll start a thread inspired by Dan.

Okay, but I should warn you: As little respect as you have for my own trivial intelligence, I have at least ten times less respect for yours.

The fact that you can count to ten and multiply that, warms my heart.

[pood]

Someone here imagines that he is doing philosophy but doesn’t even know what “begs the question” means.

[Sculptor]

@pood

Someone here imagines that he is doing philosophy but doesn’t even know what “begs the question” means.

I think that is pretty much par for the course here on ILP.

[MagsJ (..a chic geek)]

_
Try stay off that verbal paternoster of your’s, Iam… if you can.

[iambiguous]

@Moe

Someone here imagines that he is doing philosophy but doesn’t even know what “begs the question” means.

Okay, first the “technical” meaning:

“In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.” Wikipedia

Now, the manner in which I used it above:

1] Sculptor comes into the thread making the point that philosophy ILP style is basically now just a joke.
2] so the first question that then popped into my head is this: if that’s how he feels why then is he here? That’s the question in my view that begged to be asked. So I asked it.

And then he noted he was in here just for the laughs.

And, sure, that’s a perfectly reasonable answer to give if you are in need of laughs.

So then I asked him to begin a new discussion.

Preferably one that revolves around one or another conflicting good so as to zoom in on that which is of most interest to me philosophically: how ought one to live?

Or something that interest you instead.

You can note what an “actual philosophical argument” is and I can note [if necessary] what a Stooge is.

[iambiguous]

@MagsJ

_
Try stay off that verbal paternoster of your’s, Iam… if you can.

Paternoster

1. (in the Roman Catholic Church) the Lord’s Prayer, especially in Latin.
2. an elevator consisting of a series of linked doorless compartments moving continuously on an endless belt.

So, which one did you have in mind? You know, given a particular context.

Right, Wendy?

[phyllo]

The constant insults.

There is nobody here named Curly, Larry, Moe or Shemp.

[pood]

@iamatroll

@Moe

Someone here imagines that he is doing philosophy but doesn’t even know what “begs the question” means.

Okay, first the “technical” meaning:

“In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.” Wikipedia

Nice use of Google! =D>

[iambiguous]

@phyllo

The constant insults.

There is nobody here named Curly, Larry, Moe or Shemp.

Come on, I have been noting my own assessments of the manner in which you portray my own approach to philosophy at ILP. Substantive points allowing you to respond substantively in turn.

And I can absolutely assure you that to the extent that you do respond substantively to my points there will be no “Larrys” from me. In fact, I have used phyllo throughout on this thread, right? After all, it’s not exactly a science differentiating phyllo and Larry. It is wholly subjective.

So, do you have anything substantive to add to my points above…or not?

[iambiguous]

@pood

@iamatroll

@Moe

Someone here imagines that he is doing philosophy but doesn’t even know what “begs the question” means.

Okay, first the “technical” meaning:

“In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.” Wikipedia

Nice use of Google! =D>

Thanks, but that’s what it’s there for. Now, on to my own wholly subjective intent above in regard to Sculptor.

[pood]

As a relative newcomer, I do observe, unfortunately, that there is relatively little substantive philosophical discourse here, and a lot of personal attacks, backbiting, slurs, etc. I suppose I’ve done a bit of it myself, but mostly when certain people, such as someone who didn’t know until he used Google a few minutes ago what “begs the question” means, refuses to responsibly engage or even acknowledge the arguments of others. I do wish this were a better and more attractive place, but I think most message boards have deteriorated to this point. I used to post at the now-defunct iidb, which imploded spectacularly around 2010, and participation there was absolutely massive, including all kinds of working scientists, philosophers, and scholars of all sorts. Back then, however, blogs and youtube were embryonic, and the odious T*****r did not yet exist. Most people who actually know stuff have mainly migrated to blogs and other venues. Still, this could be a good venue even at this late date, if people who actually knew stuff and were interested in honestly exchanging views with others posted. There are some good posters here, and I am encouraged by Yazata, who is new here.

[pood]

@iamatroll

Thanks, but that’s what it’s there for. Now, on to my own wholly subjective intent above in regard to Sculptor.

But if you knew anything about philosophy, you would have already known what “begs the question” means. You would also know what the Law of Non-Contradiction means. These are just such elementary things that one expects them to be known by everyone on a philosophy board.

[iambiguous]

@Moe

As a relative newcomer, I do observe, unfortunately, that there is relatively little substantive philosophical discourse here, and a lot of personal attacks, backbiting, slurs, etc. I suppose I’ve done a bit of it myself, but mostly when certain people, such as someone who didn’t know until he used Google a few minutes ago what “begs the question” means, refuses to responsibly engage or even acknowledge the arguments of others. I do wish this were a better and more attractive place, but I think most message boards have deteriorated to this point. I used to post at the now-defunct iidb, which imploded spectacularly around 2010, and participation there was absolutely massive, including all kinds of working scientists, philosophers, and scholars of all sorts. Back then, however, blogs and youtube were embryonic, and the odious T*****r did not yet exist. Most people who actually know stuff have mainly migrated to blogs and other venues. Still, this could be a good venue even at this late date, if people who actually knew stuff and were interested in honestly exchanging views with others posted. There are some good posters here, and I am encouraged by Yazata, who is new here.

A block of words this time only in order to say the very same thing: that I’m the problem here.

Think that yourself? Then don’t read the stuff I post. Let alone believe it, read it and keep responding to it over and over and over and over and over again.

It’s clearly a personal problem with him. The Karpel Tunnel Syndrome let’s call it.

Meanwhile, I have been doing my best to comment on the points that phyllo raised above. Anyone here inclined to do their best in an exchange of substantive posts relating to my own reactions?

[phyllo]

Where’s Biggie’s Gadot? I too wish he’d visit the smartest man on the internet for a ‘Groot together.’

Jesus Christ.

[iambiguous]

@phyllo

Where’s Biggie’s Gadot? I too wish he’d visit the smartest man on the internet for a ‘Groot together.’

Jesus Christ.

Of course here you have a choice [binary or otherwise]: call her on polluting my threads or, sure, figure that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[WendyDarling]

@iambiguous

@phyllo

Where’s Biggie’s Gadot? I too wish he’d visit the smartest man on the internet for a ‘Groot together.’

Jesus Christ.

Of course here you have a choice [binary or otherwise]: call her on polluting my threads or, sure, figure that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You take no responsibility in this matter as expected. You came into my thread to Groot. I asked you to refrain, so instead you returned to insult. Repeatedly, typical Biggie.

[phyllo]

You both deserve a time-out.

Stop bugging each other.

[WendyDarling]

@phyllo

You both deserve a time-out.

Stop bugging each other.

I wasn’t the original annoying bug. Biggie needs to own up to starting shit. I’ll definitely own up to finishing it.