As I have already said there is an awful lot posted here that has nothing at all to do with philosophy
So should we all make a collective effort to try to redress that imbalance or just carry on as we are
Now I favour the former but as I also said without willpower it will just not happen so what say you

What do you propose to fix it?

I would like some consensus among the members to post more serious stuff. I do not think it will work
if it has to be enforced by the mods for that will simply create resentment and be counter productive

As I said in the other thread, crazy people can’t stop themselves from posting crazy stuff. One reason is that they don’t think that the stuff is crazy.

Ecmandu may post complete rubbish but he has a maths degree so he could easily do quality posts. Trixie can write computer
programmes so she can do likewise. I do not think that shellytrokan is here anymore as her last post was over two months ago

I’m a high school drop out.


That is the best philosophy on earth…

Propaganda is easy, contributions are hard

Even if you are a drop out you can still post maths stuff which is more interesting than
your female blackmail conspiracy nonsense that only you and Trixie actually believe in

I’ll repeat: it’s not a conspiracy: you have to preplan a conspiracy

That’s a straw man rebuttal, and now you’ve done it twice

I intentional post crazy or comeduc stuff as a method, not because I am. It’s a old philosophical lineage I go by.

However, in the cases of Trixie and Ecmandu (worried trixie has been banned again) is we keep them around because we are for starters tolerant, that they literally are of a different mindset and we might learn something from the dialogue- a old idea, and thirdly because they are the most in need of the experience of engaging in philosophical discourse. This is a pan-philosophical website, any and all philosophy is up for discussion, and in the case of schizophrenics, we have a long history in philosophy of somewhat embracing, or at least tolerating them. I find it impressive for all their issues, they still have the drive to learn and improve themselves.

We can do both S57. Chaos is my method, and it us very sobering and focused. I’m writing a tract right now called “Exploring Your ANUS: A Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic” - ANUS being a acyronym for a method of studying and formulating new ideas. I even reworked Aristotle’s Square of Opposites so it looks like this:


That way a student or professor learning thus has to run their fingers across it’s various parts to make formulaic logic. Absolutely absurd and dirty, but 100% innovative, and I propose a few advances to logic and philosophy in general through it, even though half the audience reading it would be scared sick or vomiting from joy reading it. It’s as crazy as it gets, yet is completely sane and sober at the same time. I give people what they really want, perverted excitement, through otherwise brutally dreary analysis. I’m seriously considering a examination of every philosopher prior to Socrates (the presocratics) in this work. It takes philosophy out of the clouds and makes it relatible to even the uneducated back alley riffraff that haunt third world slums. That’s not a bad thing at all.

So have a bit more tolerance for our fiends, they use only words, and if your better than them in your thinking, then study the disparity for the ask of exploring your ANUS, you need to understand why your different, if for no other reason, than gaining a better understanding of how thinking works.

Turd, in ancient society I’d be the head shaman …

Most prestigious …

Societies like that still exist …

Before you write me off…


I’m one of two people in human history who released a unique way to count rational numbers, and the only person who did the reals…

I’m not mentally ill because of me, but because of all of you

Id like to increase the quality of my intercourse.

Without intercourse there is no philosophy

Deepest thing you will ever read

You’re being sarcastic.

The most obvious and thus deepest problem in all of existence, is that unless we can all get what we want… without hurting anyone, this is all bullshit.

Say I land the prettiest woman in the world.

That means someone else didn’t.

Say I land the best philosophical mind ever, that means someone else didn’t.

No matter what you do, no matter how great or small… it’s going to hurt someone, and someone is going to hurt you for it.

It’s an endless cycle of shit.

Im the only person on earth who actually gives a shit.

I’m solving it.

The rest of you are vapid and shallow ostriches.

Another thing you need to know about existence… if you don’t solve everyones problems… you still have a problem yourself.

Not being the number 1 philosopher isn’t actually the problem.

Focus on fixing the game.

The problem is not not having the 1 hottest girl in the world.
What is a problem is, when you can’t have the girl of your dreams. Then you can’t have the other girl you love. Then you wait 3 months. Fall in love again, then can’t have the new girl you love.

The game isn’t even glitchy. It’s not even functional. Earth game is like, an equivalent to a videogame where all players lag out every match and fall through the floor because the floors don’t even have collisions.

Earth is like Big Rigs over the Road Racing.

You seem to worry abut making the game perfect, I’m just trying making it playable.

Actually, Earth is the opposite of big rigs, Earth is impossibly difficult, a frustration fest where you can’t even get to the first check point of the the first level. Both are garbage games


Very perceptive of you!

The reason I’m trying to make it perfect, is that if there is a flaw, it sends to hell eventually.

Seriously, the ONLY solution is to use behavioral signatures and variations in a PZ universe that everyone constructs themselves and can always update!!!

That’s the mega solution!

Nobody loves you more than you love yourself… this is true of everyone.

If you want to improve something, learn to measure it. But first, improve how you measure.

Okay, James, how does one measure the quality of philosophical discourse unless he or she wholly subscribes to the tenets of RM/AO?

And how is this then measured with respect to the Real God?

Also, how is this related to, oh, I don’t know, conflicting value judgments? :wink:

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“crappy philosophy discussion”], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, …”