So, what have you learned in this place?

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

Seems that this ILP place has been around since the beginning of (internet) times, with countless users and discussions about basically everything imaginable.

Nowadays, with the tough competition of the social networks like YouTube and X, discussion boards like this seem to have gone out of fashion. Anyway, I personally think that here we can have interaction of the type impossible on YT, X or TikTok. More in-depth conversation, I mean, even if ultimately we’ll always disagree with each and every thing the others say.

Since I’m new here (not to discussion boards like this), I can’t actually give a very profound account of what I have learned so far, though I certainly have learned something (for me nothing is ever entirely futile, if I’m here, there’s a reason for it, if I was sure it’s a waste of time, I’d be spending my time elsewhere).

But what about you, do you think you could say that you have learned something here, if anything at all?

2

I don’t even know where to begin… a lot. I’ve learned a lot, from many people on this forum and others as well. A lot of my initial doubts and suspicions were confirmed from the beginning. My life has always drawn toward Philosophy and philosophical thinking / argumentation / rationalization. Satyr has had the strongest effect and I feel he’s a modern-day Socrates type, who the normies, midwits, and dimwits of Athens (Western Civilization) detest and hate, because he exposes their stupidities and irrationalities, out in the open.

You may or may not know this… but there’s been lots of crazies and psychopaths around here: “polishyouth”, “WWIII_Angry”, etc. These types, with no strong masculinity, and weak minds, will happily commit acts of violence and hate, from being defeated in argument, or made fools of publicly. The ability to draw these types out, exposes to me, how necessary and valuable Philosophy is, for Political and practical purposes. The masses of the world, the normies, are more-than-happy to tell you what they think and why. Usually they merely expose their childhood and teenage Indoctrinations, and the subsequent belief-systems and core-beliefs they trust in.

Violent psychotics and unintelligent people don’t belong in, or last long in, Philosophical venues. Because philosophy relies on very high, stringent, logical and rational standards. It depends on large degrees of Honesty and “Good Will”. If people are only here to do violence, and to ignore one another, then Philosophy cannot be conducted. Society descends into a state of war and violence. So it’s best, pragmatically, to fight and ‘win’ these countless arguments and debates via Reason first. That delineates the lines throughout society.

As for the rest of what I’ve learned… very abstract conclusions which can be extended from obvious, simple axioms. For example, if races are NOT equal, and genders are NOT equal, and IQ is NOT equal… then it stands to reason, that hierarchies exist under specific causes and effects. Therefore, I’d want to know exactly what leads to disparity. What is the formula for competition? What is the history of it? Can hierarchies be overthrown, or not, and do people really want what they claim, if they could witness in advance the consequences of their beliefs and ideologies? Most people dwell in Ignorance, because it’s comfortable in life. Ignorance is the basis for ‘easy’ lives and lifetimes.

I wouldn’t want such a thing. I want “The Truth”. I want Freedom of Though, aka Free-Will.

3

I have learned a lot via throwing my idea-swords out and seeing what swings back, & what not.

Por ejemplo:

4

Thanks for you thorough answer, RealUn.

I’ve been to a lot of online communities before and I have met these weird types too. They are generally convinced they are absolutely right and what hurts them more is when you aren’t easily convinced by anything they say, but instead of rectifying their vitriolic position, they simply become more and more convinced they are right and all others are wrong, stubborn paranoids that they are.

I may find some entertaiment in dealing with such people once in a while, but they grow tiresome very easily, especially when you grow older.

I see what you mean, I also want freedom of thought, only, when it comes to natural hierarchies, I believe our specific level of intelligence can make us overcome this notion of some being naturally entitled to rule on others. But I won’t elaborate on that now as this would be off-topic.

5

Hold on ruling others for a moment; can we rule ourselves first?

“Autonomy” seems to be the theme of the day around here… I believe that trait might be what truly separates the real ones from the pretenders. Very few people want control over their own mind and body, instead believing (falsely) that control over others is what they prefer. But it would be impossible to “control another” before you could control yourself. Power over others cannot possibly precede power over oneself.

That’s why political power is always temporary. People only grant license over themselves insofar as they share an ideal, a vision, a common purpose. Without that agreement in place, slaves would, have, and will, kill themselves in order to rid a tyrant. That’s the basis of all political ideologies.

6

Satyr has had the strongest effect and I feel he’s a modern-day Socrates type, who the normies, midwits, and dimwits of Athens (Western Civilization) detest and hate, because he exposes their stupidities and irrationalities, out in the open.

Socrates believed in absolute morality. Satyr doesn’t.
.
.

Universal Moral Standards: Socrates taught that there is a single, omnipresent moral system that determines how one ought to act, regardless of time, place, or circumstance

7

Actually, he reminds me more of Diogenes.

1 Like
8

Socrates highest value was Truth at all costs. He was put to death for it, in the story books.

What is Satyr’s highest value? Why does greater society tend to hate and reject The Truth? How does general (human) society represent Herd Mentality and traits? What is Group-Think and how pervasive is it exactly?

9

Socrates had this positive side to him, the enquiring mind, but he was also a believer in an absolutely black/white code of morality that established, once and for all, what good and bad were, for him and for all.

Silenus expressly says he doesn’t believe in absolutes, so there’s where the similarities end. Socrates went to the point of voluntarily drinking hemlock for his love of Truth. I don’t think Silenus would ever go that far.

I think Nietzsche said Socrates was the 'beginning of the end" for ancient Greece?

Silenus/Satyr strikes me more as a mix between Diogenes and Nietzsche, albeit trying to reinterpret these two guys’ attitudes in his own peculiar way.

10

The first person I encountered back in 2004 was @Marshall McDaniel, with whom I had a long series of conversations with that made me think about my positions. I was asking a lot of questions then.

Despite the strange name, @Pope Lanky Wanky KSC and I, and @phrygianslave the wise were quite interesting when we talked about disillusion, and the realisation that what we’d been taught wasn’t actually true.

In 2004 I had a conversation about an article from Robert Fisk with @Polemarchus.

In 2013 I spoke about Jordan Peterson’s take on God with @surreptitious75 and @Ierrellus, with whom I still have contact, although less recently. He visits my Facebook page now and then. In 2019 @promethean75 and @Urwrongx1000 took it off topic.

In 2022 I took a break, and learned that the same old problematic people were still here in 2024, so I suppose that I learnt that my creative writing was more important.

11

His highest value is complaining and propaganda. I called him out about it in another thread but I can’t seem to find it anymore.

12

Like many on these forums he has fixed opinions and doesn’t seem to adjust them. For example I called him out on some other nonsense such as he thinks Respect=Fear, when its actually more complicated than that. Then a few days later he posts that Respect=Fear again and argues with Daniel Lavender about it for many posts and wouldn’t change his opinion.

13

Herd mentality is when people cannot adjust their opinions. Satyr is one of many who seems to rarely if ever change their opinions. Extremely common amongst normies.

Like back in the day I would say 9-11 was an inside job to normies, all I got was ridicule and mockery for it. I dared not even to mention that jews could be involved. Normies are automatons of the herd

14

These few (rare) individuals with whom you can have some intelligent conversation are the reason why places like this are not a complete waste of time.

But exactly because they are so rare, so hard to find, it’s that we better spend most of our free time elsewhere, doing what we like most, in your case, writing.

Your act of creation is surely much more valuable (to you and to the world) than spending precious time here “debating” with blockheads. This is a lesson I don’t need to teach you.

15

Thank you, I have shifted a lot of my attention to my writing, with pressure to prepare manuscripts in German and English for editing. Which means I spend little time here.

16

He does complain a lot about Jews, but I can’t fault him on that, seeing how Greeks were backstabbed so many times at Constantinople and their Hellenic Empire falling to the Moslem-Jewish Ottoman Turk coalition. Greeks were the first ‘Retirees’ of Western Civilization. They arguably contributed the most, by far. It would be foolish to write him off so casually. He clearly has convincing, superior arguments, compared to 99% of the other online “Philosophers” and enthusiasts.

You’re contradicting yourself here. Satyr believes in 9-11 conspiracies, making him not a “Normie” by your own admission. I believe his opinion could change, if you concocted some strong opinions and arguments against him. Most don’t even try, because the appeal to Ad Hom is too tempting for most. Few are guided by Reason; they prefer Emotion.

17

I didn’t contradict anything. This is facepalm

I said having fixed opinion is normie behavoir, and gave an example of it. I never said Satyr was exactly the same as a normie, I said he exhibits normie tendencies of having fixed opinions.

18

Satyr has thousands of pages of expositions of his opinions. Normies do not. You’re welcome to go to KTS and comb through them, but you don’t, and you won’t. So why complain here?? It doesn’t make sense to me. Yes he’s a hard-ass, but he has right to be. He’s “earned” it. It’s usually not him who throws the first stone when it comes to philosophy arguments by the way. He’s been banned unjustly many times, imo, as have I.

Instead of complaining, debate him and “win”.

19

In his Feminization of Man essay, I gave it a review and praised him as a genius. He is like adult sheldon from bigbangtheory. in that show he gets in trouble for his controversial views and attitude

Anyway, like most here he has fixed opinions and his purpose is polemics. When someone has a fixed opinion there is no actual victory condition in a debate. The debate is already over before it began, there is no winnable series of statements that would win the debate. You can see it with others here, how they debate.

20

If you believe the Earth revolves around the Sun, and everybody else believes the Universe and Sun revolve around the Earth, then why shouldn’t you have a “fixed opinion” against everybody else?

Why not have a “fixed position” when you’re clearly and obviously right about something, and the masses either don’t know, don’t care, or repeat the spoon-fed lies of their childhood indoctrination?

Explain yourself please.

…furthermore, Satyr’s Feminization of Man essay was a full decade before the explosion of LGBTQ+ and transgender surgeries. None of us could even imagine back then, in 2006-2008, how quickly America and the West would degenerate. It’s still astounding, even as we live during the collapse.