Who's the resident Philosopher-King of ILP?

Who is it? I want the crown…

I’ll decapitate if I have to…

You are?

I am.

You can have the crown over my dead body.

Hail to the king, baby!

I’m serious as hell. Look at my posts in the philosophy forum…

I’m a badass system builder and a badass logician. I can construct and deconstruct with my hands tied behind my back.

My system speaks for itself. If you want to take me down, you have to either:

  1. Construct and even more comprehensive system that includes mine within it.
  2. Show flaws within the logic that I’ve used.

No, really. Maybe you are.

Unfortunately for you, being a philosopher requires you to be interesting as well in the things that you say/state.

I can build a pyramid out of playing cards! I should be king.

Are you saying that the system itself must be interesting or that the system must be stated interestingly/poetically?

Or are you not saying anything about a system whatsoever. Maybe you’re saying that a philosopher just has to state various interesting things.

And if so, does the “interestingness” of the thing inhere within the thing-itself? Or is it some simple, fleeting, subjective determination that I make of the thing upon my first interaction with it?

Were the preceding statements not interesting to you? And if not, should I have used more interesting words, like: autochthon, hodmandod, and percribrate?

Or maybe, I should try to make up some words that are even more interesting, like maybe: chilnedderphonus, bafwammpleskrit, or pizzerfuntulignatherous?

Am I not now becoming more interesting to you all the time???


Unreasonable, give us the music analogy again.

Pfffhhttttt kings are nothing, I am the Empress. :banana-dance: :banana-dance: :banana-dance:

To paraphrase Marcus Aurelius, ‘No.’

I am the king of bullshit. I will sell you my crown for $100 USD.

If you accept my offer, I also have a nice farm on Saturn you should consider looking into.

Here’s a test:

Why should I believe that you are the philosopher king of ILP?

Michel de Montaigne: “'Tis so much to be a king, that he only is so by being so.”
Hence, because that quote is from a semi-famous historical guy, the OP is the king. Great job! Are you proud of yourself? Well you should be, P!

No, you-yourself must be interesting, objectively so.

Then, the things you say must not deviate from your interesting nature. Otherwise, you will be a hypocrite.

Which music analogy are you referring to? I have a few.

I’m the resident contrarian.

In all seriousness here… I am far from being a professional philosopher. All I really know how to do is read and think. I can’t sit through classes, and I can’t pretend to give a crap about interpreting philosopher X’s interpretation of philosopher Y’s theory of Z-ness. That’s pretty much the kind of bullcrap you have to spend ages doing before they’ll give you tenure. All I know how to do is read and think.

You can say whatever you want about my ability to philosophize, be logical, construct systems or whatnot. I’m not really talking about anybody’s opinion of me. I’m just talking about how clearly expressed, yet profoundly original my thoughts are. And if they indeed are such, then there should be some objective way that this manifests.

If we can find a way to nominate a “top thinker” in these message boards, then we can start to put philosophy back into the hands of the “real people” out there who are not beholden to any particular institution’s bottom line.

In this way, there will start to be a kind of positive feedback mechanism so that people will have a reason to become deeper thinkers and better communicators. If not, these boards will remain at the pretty mundane levels of discourse at which they currently exist. But if so, the cream will rise to the top, the quality of content here will improve, and all of the “schoolmen” will have to start looking over their shoulders if they want to keep their relavance in this new, democratized marketplace of ideas.

I’m just putting the challenge out there. I’ll call myself the “Philosopher-King” for now until someone wants to take me up on it. I’ll continue to put my original stuff in the philosophy section and I’ll continue to try to inspire others to think deeper about the statements they are making or the questions they are asking.

Up until that post I thought you were original too. Now I’m thinking you might be an old member with a new name, or a new member with a boring old set of ideas. Which is it?