I agree. He is a “true” philosopher.
Interestingly, I have seen Iamb also not understand what putting something in quotes means. Or perhaps there’s more performance art in PK than I realize. Either way he put extra effort in to carefully not write that Iambiguous is a true philosopher.
But he didn’t seem to understand them. Not at all.
And since his defense of Iamb was based on the content of his posts and not his behavior, he like Iamb was not responding to posts made or the issues. Like Iamb he assumes that it is not possible to consider someone’s behavior unless you disagree with their beliefs.
He seems not to have noticed that given that he is an objectivist, Iamb considers him to be part of the problem in the world. The great bulk of Iamb’s posts are about objectivism and trying to get people to demonstrate the rationality of their morality/value positions. The greatest difference is obviously that unlike Iamb, PK is not a nihilist and is an objectivist.
Further since PK does not think he himself is a “true” philosopher, there is not real reason to think he would recognize one.
I pointed out in my original response to PK other problems with saying that he and Iamb merely have different language for the same beliefs. IN fact some of his ideas that he is writing as if they are the same as Iambs are clearly not. See the Golden Age thread for that.
And as I pointed out to Iamb, PK and Iamb share political values and in general Iamb’s behavior, what I have a problem with, are less likely to happen in the political threads but much more likely to happen in the philosophy and religion threads. So, he is partly blessed, but also partly inclined to ignore the negative behavior of members of his own team. Members of the other team often do the same thing. Iamb tends to use kid gloves when dealing with objectivists he shares values with.
As Iamb surely must have noticed, despite my advice, people showed no interest in ignoring him. Oh, well. One must sometimes point out a good solution even if one thinks it is unlikely to be taken up.
So, it’s back to pointing out his disruption of threads and faux responses.
Poor PK, he doesn’t notice that he is giving answers, including objectivist answers around moral issues, with great regularity.
Help me. I didn’t need any help on that one. I am not sure why we should think you could recognize a TRUE PHILOSOPHER since you seem not to consider yourself one.
And I notice how you focus on what was merely a jab and not, for example, on the substantive portions of the post. Whatever.
I’ll never let that happen. My goal has always been to reduce ILP to mediocre thinkers through the influence of my incessant obnoxious behavior, boundless philosophical sophistry, and over-use/abuse of social media to present seemingly random and arbitrary content of myself that has nothing to do with anything.
Sure, different folks, different strokes. Even if, when push comes to shove, that’s all rooted in dasein.
But why here?!
In this great big world where exchanges going back and forth actually impact the lives of many, why on earth would reconfiguring ILP into a theater of the absurd matter to anyone at all?! Talk about lack of ambition!!
Me? Well, my own story here might be construed as particularly bathetic. Back before various “social media” like twitter and facebook and reddit became the preferred platforms for philosophy and, well, practically everything else, I was once a member of the larger, more “prestigious” philosophy forum online, The Philosophy Forum: thephilosophyforum.com/
But, for posting pretty much the same sort of thing I post here, Postmodern Beatnik – out of the blue! – “banned me for life”.
[Note to Curly: You can now add this to your collection of facts that confirm your accusations about me. Many at TPF deemed me a “troll”. And not all of them were objectivists disturbed by the points I raised about their own “real me”.]
Anyway, I went looking for another forum and settled on ILP.
And, back then, there really were far, far, far more discussions started and then sustained by those who, for whatever personal reason, were avid philosophers. Far fewer Kids and “social media” types.
So, basically, I put all my eggs in the ILP basket.
I started my signature threads including quotes, music and film. I commenced my “back to the beginning” series. I contributed any number of posts aimed at precipitating exchanges relating to that which is of most interest to me: how ought one to live given the stark reality that there may or may not be an actual Judgment Day.
Alas, however, ILP has gone more in the direction of the Kids, the yak yak yakkers, and the rabid [often unintelligible] Fixed Jacob objectivists.
But: it’s too late for me anyway. I’m an “old man”, wallowing in distractions and waiting for godot. But, who knows, if more minds like Mo’s and Faust’s and Only_Humean’s do become attracted to the forum, the Kids and social media types might be shunted aside.
In any event, given my own actual “set of circumstances”, it is all now way, way “beyond my control”.
Yeah but what you gotta do biggs is develop a solid epistemological nihilism to accompany your moral nihilism. Or that metaphysical nihilism that denies the possibility of composite entities in a possible universe or whatever. Alls I’m sayin is you need to expand your portfolio and work on improving your nihilism. Once you become a master gorgian nihilist like me you can cause people to hear songs by level 42 and tears for fears in a totally different way.
And, for a context, we can use the very latest “big thing”: the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Solid epistemological assessments of What This Means as opposed to my own more perturbing assumption that meaning here stems from political prejudices rooted in dasein.
That in an essentially meaningless world reconfiguring for each of us one by one into oblivion.