You are lowering the standard of communication in order to avoid feeling embarrassed for your petty and very rude behavior.
Iām petty and rude???
This is supported by your suggestion that there is no universal standatd of philosophical conduct. Thatās not what I said. Instead, you think that everything is relative, like a true egalitarian that you are. Relativism != egalitarianism There are only personal standards of conduct (e.g. Andersonās standard of conduct.) ā Oh my God, you took that seriously. And when you fail even according to your own standard, then you can simply lower it, so you can never feel embarrassed about anything. In this way, you can never be held responsible for anything. You are innocent no matter what you do.
Relativism doesnāt mean there is no standard for philosophical discourse. Being a relativist doesnāt change the way the brain fundamentally works. The brain is still persuaded mostly by logic, evidence, and all the other usual suspects. All that relativism is is the acknowledgement that whatever you believe and perceive, it can be traced back to a source (a book, a thought, an experience, a tradition, etc.). It is the acknowledgement that X is true according to such-and-such. But that doesnāt mean one can invent whatever crazy idea one wants, or turn whatever belief on or off willy-nilly, the least of all reasons being that the brain just doesnāt work that way, even if youāre a relativist.
Thus, it does not matter what you think, for in the absence of strict standards, you cannot think. You can only pretend that you think.
Oh, trolling certainly requires standardsā¦ maybe not philosophical ones, but stillā¦
In the absence of clear standards, there is no distinction between uncertainty and certainty, fantasy and reality, ignorance and knowledge. Everything becomes the same.
You even admit that you think that there is no difference between merely imagining what the other is saying and making a genuine attempt to understand what the other is saying.
No, there really isnāt. There is a distinction, however, between knowingly or willingly imagining what another is saying, and imagining what another is saying unknowingly or unwillingly. Just in order to understand what one means by āthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog,ā you need to have an imagination. You need to form a picture in your mind of a quick brown fox jumping over a lazy dog just in order to be able to say āah, I understand what youāre saying.ā You need an imagination to understand abstract philosophical concepts too. The difference is when someone says something from which an immediate and obvious interpretation readily springs to mind and when one doesnāt. The quick brown fox example is a case in point: itās patently clear what the utterance means, so it doesnāt strike us as something requiring guesswork to interpret correctly. ā This is like your (obviously erroneous) assertion that elites arenāt powerful. Now if you said something like elites are Marxists, Iād question what you mean by this as itās not immediately clear. But in both cases, Iām using my imagination to come up with an interpretation. In the former case, the interpretation springs to mind as obvious (thereby not prompting me to deliberately invent one consciously) whereas in the latter case, no obvious interpretation immediately jumps at me so I have to consciously and deliberately use my imagination to come up with something. The thing is, in the latter case, because I know I had to invent it, Iām more inclined to ask before proceeding.
Your victim mentality does not allow you to see reality as it is. You said Iām making up my own standards. Isnāt that master mentality? Whoever is angry with you must be so because he is a 15 year old drop out.
Keep making shit up. Why not, if you can get away with it? There is no club that can discipline you ā and only a club can discipline you. You would resort to a club. Words have no effect on you. You are āstrongā enough not to let words affect you.
Nietzsche never said that master morality means ādoing as you pleaseā. You did.
Maybe he did, maybe he didnāt; but a master who creates his own values would most likely do as he pleases.
You really do think that the world should make itself apparent to you, without requiring any effort on your part, donāt you?
The reason this discussion is going nowhere is not because I am not communicating with sufficient clarity, but because you are being evasive. You have no interest in confronting what I am saying.
No, just that people should learn basic communication skills before entering into a philosophical debate.
He who speaks with little clarity can be confronted with a demand for clarification. You can ask āwhat do you mean?ā
Iām going to have to do that for every one of your utterances because even when you do seem clear, you (apparently) mean something totally different.
Thatās not what you are doing.
What you are doing is lowering your own standards while demanding that the other increases their own.
No, just expecting you to learn basic communication skills before entering into a philosophical debate.
You thereby turn yourself into the subject of the topic. ā No, that would be you turning me into the subject of the topic. No discussion can be had with someone who is not willing to pay attention.
Hey, I have an idea! Why donāt we actually get back to the topic! Then maybe we wouldnāt have to talk about me or you, and I can actually have an opportunity to pay attention.
We all know you are a sad loser who suffers from deep feelings of inferiority. No wonder then that you grab every opportunity to feel good about yourself.
You changed the topic from āwhat is master moralityā to āwhat is the definition of the word eliteā. ā Because it was relevant.
You needed to feel superior in some regard, so you picked one of the lowest games, the game of vocabulary definitions.
I am wrong because I am using the word elite in the wrong manner.
^ Glad youāre finally starting to recognize that.
And even there, you suck. You sad fuck.