The word "philosophy" and its relevance to philosophy.

The subject of philosophy can be defined many ways, but perhaps any sincere use of the term “philosophy” is all that is really needed to make a subject philosophical. So when we use the term “philosophy” in a sentence, if we aren’t using it completely arbitrarily, then we have defined it by the way we used it. For example:

In the above statement there is no philosophical content in itself; based on the more standard definitions of the term. But the standard definition can be set aside and in that context “philosophy” can incompletely defined as that which some use for their goals and to escape reality.

If it wasn’t for the fact that “pet delusions” and “a lever against reality, a lethe in which the self can be perpetually forgotten” essentially equated to the same terms; “delusions”, we could say that there was at least a premise in that statement. Basically the premise would have been that philosophy is used in one way more than another. But, as it is, all that statement is, is a statement.

I’ll use another example to demonstrate a parallel situation.

In the above example, the subject is not purportedly about philosophy but about the status quo, the series of statements was actually titled “Defense of status quo”. But, there is no content on the subject of the status quo that’s within any standard definition of them term. Just like with the term “philosophy” in the other example, we can only assume the series of statements are about the subject they’re purported to be on, because they continually define it in the way it’s used.

Perhaps my examples are terrible choices to clarify my premise, maybe someone else could find a coherent example of a statement that would normally seem devoid of philosophy except that it contains the term “philosophy” itself.

My purpose in this is to discern what subject matter I should personally label “philosophy”, being that I’m perhaps overly prone to using the word.

I’m not satyr.

And actually I should be insulted, being compared to that ass clown.

MM is not Satyr, and may well indeed feel insulted. In any case, their styles and themes are completely different.

While I am (reservedly) sympathetic to your premise regarding the quotes, please continue in a more respectful manner, Stuart.

If you want me to refer any quotes to the name of the account that originally posted them, then no problem, I’ll do that in the future.

Philosophically, the views of the two accounts are identical, I challenge you to find one single difference. The major difference between the two accounts, is not so much the differentiated style of writing, which actually isn’t done with much care, but the way of conversing. The Satyr isn’t known for such brevity. But, more than that of course, is simply the fact that he has yet to result to rampant insults, but as you surely noticed, they are increasing. I noticed his pattern with other “disguised visits” has been to speak relatively politely at first and then later to abandon all civility.

Hypothetically assuming they aren’t the same person, for MM to be insulted by the comparison itself, it would have to be because of the antagonistic nature of Satyr. So how does MM express his disdain for the comparison between the person he just admitted to knowing? Not through an explanation of any ideological differences, but by a generally insulting term referring to the person as a whole. Why would one who doesn’t wish to be equated with one who uses terms like “ass clown”, show his distaste by calling the person he’s being equated with an “ass clown”?

Then you may also note in the thread on sockpuppets now in rant; he basically implied that I considered him to be a God. But, the reason could only have been because of the way I mocked/mimicked him in the OP, it seems like a weak foundation for such an accusation.

I actually find Satyr’s work older work to be very interesting, and he knows that. Intense interest for a time in one authors work is very common, it certainly doesn’t equate to pathetic worship. But, let’s just say it did, why would MM assume it was he who I see as God like, if he was not Satyr? Can one really become obsessed with the rather academic work contained in less than 130 short posts? MM/Satyr was likely just reflecting on the fact that I’m one who is regularly expressing my disapproval for the turn the quality of his work has taken, and thereby wished to use one of the standard defenses; implying worship or obsession, but he forgot who it was out of his two accounts that I was supposed to be worshipping.

If someone had mistaken me for someone else and was giving me undue attention because of that, I might say they’re obsessed with or worship the person they’re mistaking me for, but not actually with me.

I’m Satyr and so is my wife.

MM is not Satyr, not even close.

I’ll extend the challenge to both of you well read Satyrians; find me one ideological difference between the “two” people.

I did a character analysis on both.
They are very different.
Satyr isn’t that good at pretending (as became obvious in his female pretense).
MM isn’t in Satyr’s character.

I don’t want to run needless errands for you, but if you’d like I’ll pull up the conversations on both ILP and kts where Satyr made it clear that it wasn’t important that he sounded feminine. He was trying to make a rather banal point that while those on ILP often speak of gender equality, we supposedly, will suddenly make a huge issues of gender if we find it to be in doubt; such as those doubting Sabina’s obvious pretense of being female. Though, of course he discounted the fact that they real issue being made was of him once again returning as another sockpuppet, far more so than gender.

But, you have good point, its so easy for a male to pretend to be a female, and so difficult to pretend to be another male.

So its about the character one’s in rather than the person typing behind the computer screen? Would you automatically assume someone was Satyr if they mimicked his character?

I don’t assume hardly anything ever. And it wasn’t greatly important to me at all. Even after I knew Sabina was very probably Satyr, I said nothing because on a philosophy site, I don’t really care who says what as much as what is said. Unfortunately, he got far too emotional in what he was saying for his discussions to get anywhere.

MM doesn’t get anywhere close to that emotional, along with other dissimilar characteristics.

I wouldn’t care even if MM really was Satyr, but in his defense, I was willing to state what is obvious to me.

Neither is wrong about everything they say and at times are going to agree with what they say even if they hate the thought of it.

There is some importance when the debate on this forum is being deflected from that where it can actually progress, to simply the tentatively amusement of someone. In at least the last year Satyr appears to have been unintentionally belittling all his former work (or just the ideas he used to believe in that may not be worth attributing to him at all) by associating it with personas who will run and hide when ever it is seriously challenged. How do we pick up the topics he leaves behind obscured by immaterial controversy? I understand that the internet is usually anonymous and one must debate with most based only on their present posts, but when we have reason to believe we know the person we should act on that knowledge.

Emm… I guess I missed the part where you explained why someone doesn’t just restate whatever they have come to believe about a topic if they want to discuss it further regardless of who has said it before… ?

I have been lately discussing the same topics Satyr has discussed on this forum years ago. Few likely noticed because I was being careful not refer to him, use the exact same terminology as him, or sound like him in any way at all. In fact that’s exactly what’s being done on the MM account.

Keep in mind that in MM’s above statement there is the clear inference that he knows Satyr well, supposedly well enough to be insulted by him.

So why do I and the person whose using the MM account, feel the need to be so careful about expressing the persona Satyr’s philosophy. Its not because of the content itself; Only_Humean said himself once something to the effect that Satyr’s philosophy was work-a-day, but his method was what is intolerable. It’s the association with the persona and its reputation that completely ruins any chances of the conversation being extended.

Go back about a month on the “What are you doing?” thread, and see where Mo said he had complete contempt for me for just because I mentioned that I had been associating with KTS.

So maybe MM will never let himself be thought of as complete equatable with the Satyr account by any others, but should he ever do so (and by his posts from the last couple days; it seems he’s well on his way), then for one to pick up the topic again, they would have to be even more subtle than before if they wish to avoid unwanted associations.

Trying to please too many people (especially idiots) will back you into such a corner that you will go postal, after which you will proclaim a new philosophy for life along the lines of “People need to not give a fuck, be an MAN, and just grow some balls!!!”… a counter reaction to what had been far too much effort to “go along in order to get along” (also known as being “between a rock and a hard place”).

My advice to such people can be complicated, but more generally, it amounts to “Man up now, before you make your situation even worse than you imagine it to be, because it is seldom anywhere near as dangerous as scary.”

Or in short…

Just say what you have to say and don’t worry if some idiot thinks you are someone else or have some association with someone else. Around here, it will certainly not make a difference of any significance.

Moved to MB, as this isn’t philosophy.

I don’t even see the confusion. If I had to suspect MM of being a sockpuppet, which I don’t, there are many posters I’d rank above Satyr. Satyr is bitter, has a chip on his shoulder about feminisation and masculinity, and is into his classical Greek. MM is, as far as I can tell, a bit light-headed on Nietzsche. There’s no hint of Satyr’s goading or manipulation, nor his Heraclitean philosophy. Satyr’s old Greece, MM’s romantic Germany. They’re not in the least similar, apart from throwing around “will to power” freely. But that’s common to about a third of all online philosophy. They have completely different MOs and, more relevantly, IPs.

When Satyr philosophises properly, I think he’s good at it. He’s a bright cookie. He’s just more hampered by his psychology than many.


Would you please give me the names of some of those accounts? You may notice that I have no problem spending time researching old ILP posts.

Satyr can go for pages without making any Greek references and MM may not be bitter, but he’s definitely not “up beat”.

Sauwelios (who doubts my claims that MM and Satyr are the same, as much as anyone) agrees that Satyr is not a Nietzschean.


It seems clear, to me anyway, that he’s been goading some people, though certainly its more subdued. I believe I’ve seen signs of his Heraclitean philosophy, though I’m far from being an expert on the subject, so maybe your right about that.

I haven’t read everything MM has posted, but I don’t believe he ever referred specifically to German romanticism or any such philosophers. But I definitely agree that he is romantic Germany, nonetheless. Obviously, he’s against Hume and he does appear to favor Schopenhauer, a German romantic.

Unlike MM, who never actually mentions Schopenhauer, Satyr did so often here on ilp and still does on kts, he is doubtlessly in favor of him. Satyr never made a thread specifically against Hume, but he made it clear that Hume isn’t one of his favorites. Below is the most relevant quote of MM’s I could find followed by old quotes of Satyr’s regarding both Schopenhauer and his disdain for Hume.






This is just embarassing.

Yes, but then again I don’t know since this farce is actually somewhat entertaining, at least to me.