Just got back from perusing a few threads/posts at Know Thyself. And while I often use it as a punching bag to vent in regard to my “rooted in dasein” distaste for moral and political objectivists, I do want to note in turn that at least the members there are actually intent on pusuing substantive assessments of the world around us.
Yes, it’s still basically Satyr’s own clique/claque. He rules the roost and most of the other members – given the dungeon – toe his line. And, as I note over and again, much of the substance being posted there is up in clouds of intellectual contraptions. Worlds of words that revolve around what many construe to be reactionary political prejudices related to race and gender and sexual orientation.
And yet what I wouldn’t give if ILP itself might come to reflect a far more substantive collection of exchanges. Even to go back to the days when I first became a member.
Say what I will about Know Thyself, but I do have to admit that over there even the “fulminating fanatics” seem to have some familiarity with philosophy as a discipline. And there are no Kids there for the most part. And, best of all, the site isn’t bursting at the seams with what, from my frame of mind, is the godawful “social media” mentality that seems to pop up everywhere here of late. No “poop threads” there thank goodness. No exchange of “one liners” that seem aimed more at scoring points in sub-mental “duels”.
On the other hand, as the Chimp would insist to Satyr time and again over there, “we’ll need a context of course”.
Or, sure, perhaps I will manage [once again] to reduce you down to a sputtering Stooge.
Actually, truth be told, I don’t see you here as a Kid or as a fulminating fanatic or as a social media bullshitter. You do have something to say for the most part and it is certainly within the general vicinity of philosophy.
Instead, you create these posts that are, to me, densely esoteric. And whenever I ask you to bring the components of your own philosophy to bear on the things that interest me here – morality here and now, immortality there and then: how ought one to live? – you skedaddle back you to your rather obscure, obtuse rendition of Satyr’s own intellectual contraptions.
Just once I’d like to sustain an exchange with you that might allow me to actually grasp what the hell you are trying to say in regard to “how one ought to live?” in the day to day world that most of us are familiar with.
But that is as elusive with you now as it was for me back in the days of James S. Saint.
In my view, you have concocted this “world of words” TOE “in your head” and you’re sticking to it. A truly mystifying intertwining of value ontology, astrology, Nietzsche and the old gods.
No, from my frame of mind, it seems the objectivists of Fixed Jacob’s ilk are far closer to being one of those. Why? Because when you link value judgments to ontology, how are you not insisting that your own personal values reflect an either/or dogma? An axiomatic agenda you adhere to slavishly because, well, you must. Think Ayn Rand. Or, again, Satyr.
Then it only becomes a matter of whether he attacks those who refuse to think about their own moral and political value judgments just as he does. And if his values have an ontological foundation, isn’t he obligated to?
Unless of course his ontology is not universal across the globe but is only applicable in each and every individual context. The von rivers approach to value judgments?
Next, the part where this becomes entangled in “celestial bodies”; and in his own take of Nietzsche’s Übermensch; and “the Gods”?
Now, I readily admit I might be completely misconstruing his points here. That’s why we need a discussion between us in which, given a context of his choice, we examine more substantively what he means in calling me a slave. And what I mean by suggesting that he himself might be one instead.
Yes, it is but another hopelessly obscure and ponderously obtuse intellectual contraption. You finish reading the post and you are still left wondering, “affirming/nullifying” what exactly?"
Or, given that he changed the title of the thread to “Cognitive Dissonance”, in regard to that specifically.
You tell me: Is it or is it not just another world of words assessment in which the words define and defend only other words?
The Jews and the Zionists and the Marxists and the Nihilists and all of their memes come into play here of course…but in regard to what actual set of circumstances?
And, yes, if a new member comes on board and dares to disagree with him, he or she is likely to be shunted off to the dungeon. And, once there, even be made to “disappear”.
But: However pedantic, who here would suggest that this is not at least something one would expect to find in a philosophy venue?
He’s got to be given credit for at least that in my opinion.
