Once again, I reduce him down to “retorts” like this…brain farts utterly lacking in substance.
Isn’t he even in the slightest embarrassed by this?
But, okay, in regard to the 2nd Amendment above, what does he mean by knowing thyself?
How, given what he “actually is”, would he defend himself against the arguments I raise above?
Yo, obsrvr524, you’re up!
A neo-liberal objectivist that gets his political viewpoints from mainstream media, but constantly pretends to be a nihilist when people start to notice. :-"
There is nothing nihilistic about his writings and it’s comical that he himself can’t even see that. A sort of philosophical poser and impostor.
Again:
As for his “assessment” of me above, I’m sticking with this:
[b]On the other hand, I am more than willing to discuss what he means by a “neo-liberal objectivist” who merely “pretends to be a nihilist” in a more substantive and substantial manner.
What on earth does he mean by that…given a particular set of circumstances where we can assess our respective moral and political philosophies.
Let’s see if he has more intellectual moxie than those like Pedro and obsrvr524 and urwongx1000 and his very own mini-me Wendy when it comes to going there with me.
No huffing and puffing, no personal attacks, no polemics. Just a straight up discussion of how we have come to think about an issue at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political economy.[/b]
I only mock those that deserve it, I don’t mock everybody. Feel free to respond to my previous post instead of talking about it, by actually doing it instead.
Most people when they see a clown or even a fool they just see the paint and the smiling grin, of course anybody familiar with history along with some more of the abstract unconventional notions that it encompasses there are more things to know about both concerning symbolic metaphors. Everybody is so concerned with surfaces, very few gaze what’s underneath. 
Here’s what I offer him:
But this is all he is willing to come back with:
What I am curious about, however, is whether or not this is all he is capable of coming back with.
Biggie is a master at dancing around subjects, dodging assertions, or avoiding direct conversation, I called him a fake nihilist and a neo-liberal where of course he’ll never address this indictment against him. You just can’t take the guy seriously at all.
The same old Karpel Tunnel Stooge accusations.
All he has to do here is to focus in on a context in which we can explore our respective moral and political philosophies. In the philosophy forum, agreeing to avoid huffing and puffing and name-calling and personal attacks.
A civil and intelligent exchange such that as it unfolds, he can point out specific instances of both the accusations and the labels he affixes to me above and elsewhere.
I challenge him to start the thread himself.
Again, he can start here:
iambig why u always calling people names?
Bingo. And while, of course, he gets called a lot of names. He starts it with the label objectivist in interaction after interaction, the name obviously meant perjoratively. And then after labeling, he will add in the reasons you disagree with him or complain about his behavior: read: it is never about his behavior, it is because we are afraid of losing the comfort of some contraption.
So insulting name, then mindreading. And that’s as a rule, often in a play to the gallery, for over a decade.
I don’t know, why did you think that something like this…
I’m sitting on my couch, watching a video of the alabama/lsu game while smoking a bong and waiting for chinese food to be delivered. I was thinking of getting someone over here to clean the place. This is usually what I’m doing, I’ve seen this game about 130-140 times now. Or I’m in the bathroom someplace, bored and using my phone to post on message boards while I poop.
…is appropriate to post on a forum called “I Love Philosophy”? Why are you basically a charter member of the “yak yak yak, social media” crowd here?
Also, note how many times I call people names on these thread:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=170060
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 8&t=195930
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 8&t=196100
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 8&t=196110
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=175121
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=195600
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=175006
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=186929
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=195614
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=195964
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
As opposed to my attempt to ignite or to sustain discussions that would be of interest to those who might come into ILP because they do love philosophy?
My guess: dasein.
The accumulation of experiences in my life, like the accumulation of experiences in yours predisposed us to post as we do here.
Here and now as it were.
First, of course, I make the attempt to explain that “objectivist” is only a word that subjectively has come to mean the following…to “me”:
1] someone who believes that they are in sync with their real me and/or their core self and/or their “soul”
2] that this True Self is, in turn, in sync with The Right Thing To Do in regard to their moral and political values
3] that, in possession of political power, they come to embody authoritarianism and see the world as divided up between those who are “one of us” [the good guys] and “one of them” [the bad guys]
And that, given particular sets of circumstances, this can be an extremely dangerous and deadly combination. Historically, think folks like Stalin and Hitler.
And I don’t “name” someone an objectivist in the manner in which Objectivists of Ayn Rand’s ilk use that expression.
And, again, the irony is that in many crucial respects, I don’t construe Karpel Tunnel to be an objectivist himself. To the best of my knowledge, he believes in neither God nor objective morality. Just like me.
BUT
He does embrace a “visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-me” Self that keeps being fractured and fragmented [as a pragmatist] at bay.
In other words:
“But if you come and say God says that iambiguous is not all those things I say he is, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves iambiguous is not all the things I say he is, I will not override the revulsion that I think and feel about him. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.”
At least now.
I have attempted to explore that with him here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=196034
But he “foed” me and refuses to explore the accusations and labels he thumps me [over and over again] with on the philosophy board here.
He basically hides behind the “foe” function.
Call it, say, the phoneutria syndrome.
I think iam is gay.
Which is fine, it’s cool, I mean it’s 2021.
But I think he’s gay.
Had to look that up:
“Gay: keenly alive and exuberant…having or inducing high spirits”
Yeah, sure, most of the time.
Now I’ll look up “asshole”.
Yep, that explains your avatar. Well at least in Merriam-Webster.
I’m dying.
Yes. Exuberant.
Biggie, this thread should have begun with a poll about what you are.
Well, when it comes to the lowest common denominator types that have infested ILP of late, we can count on you to create one.
Meanwhile, however, I’m clobbering “your man” here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 2&t=196505
Oh, and on this thread of course.
Why don’t you come to his, uh, rescue?
On the other hand, humiliating him is an actual challenge next to a mini-me of your ilk.
Still, just as with Pedro, nothing embarrasses you.
Does it?
Tell us more about the organic materialism of Marx and how all rational men and women are compelled to believe it (since anything that is true is objectively true for everybody to paraquote you).
That’s what this thread – ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 3&t=195888 – was created for. Well, not counting those of your ilk who use it to spray their dung about.
And I do not argue that all rational men and women are obligated to believe what Marx wrote. Let alone what I think he wrote. What I think here is encompassed in the arguments I make in my signature threads.
But what would the Kids here care about with regard to that?
Oh, and when you and Wendy finally tie the knot, please don’t invite me to the wedding.
Although, sure, why don’t we create a poll and vote on the names of all your children.