I donât know which Stooge you call me, but if this is supposed to represent my thinking it is only partially correct. I donât think youâve driven away serious philosophers. I donât remember a golden age here. But maybe one of the other Stooges is nostaligic. Or maybe I said something like this, itâs justâŠwho am I longing for. Itâs nice to see Von Rivers around, but I never got the impression he left because of you, for example. I figured he just got tired the then, and still now, fairly low quality philosophy. Of which I consider myself a part. I am here for reasons that are not really philosophy, but to bounce off worldviews. There are better places for more academic philosophy, if thatâs what you mean by serious philosophy, Iâve never understood this criticism. I am always free to go to the more academic ones, if thatâs what serious means, so I have no complaints against you based on losses to serious philosophy.
Its not that the people are weird. Well some are of course. But its more less how Carleas described it, which isnât so weird when you look at it that way.
Right, like that expression itself isnât a subjective point of view rooted in dasein. But when I first became a member of ILP, there were considerably more folks that I would construe to be passionate about philosophy. And in whatever manner they had come to understand âthe best of all possible worldsâ in regard to exchanges of philosophy. Thatâs the comparison that I make. Not between the way ILP was then and someoneâs description of the best of all philosophical worlds. Period. My way or the highway.
I didnât name names because I have no idea why any particular member left. All I can do is, once again, extrapolate from my own understanding of past experiences in philosophy venues going all the way back to the MSN groups 20 years ago. Von and Velvet Chainsaw, my âarchenemiesâ in a group called [I think] Brainstorm!
And, for me, âserious philosophersâ are still more or less in sync with Will Durantâs assessment:
âIn the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their companyâŠhe wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern himâŠHe retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist.â
This too being but an intellectual contraption rooted existentially in dasein. But my own interest in philosophy revolves almost entirely around exploring flesh and blood human interactions that revolve around morality and immortality. Given particular contexts. And in exploring the gaps between what someone believes or claims to know is true âin their headâ and what they are able to actually demonstrate as in fact true for all other rational human beings.
I think Iâm curly, but didnât you switch names around a while ago? Anyway, itâs not the part of your posts I notice.
Um, I donât remember me thinking there was a Golden Age here. You wrote to WW111 as if I was mourning a better time (from my values). I donât remember feeling that way or expressing it. The Pale imitiation. You said I, yes, made a value judgment that now is worse then then. I havenât.
Wait. You said I or Curly in any case, thought it was better before. Not you.
Please. Just for a moment. You saidâŠ
[/quote]
I donât think that.
I have called you out on your behavior, but I have never said that ILP is a pale imitation of what it was. If I am Curly. Am I Curly? If I am not Curly, who did say it? IS Curly Phyllo?
Which of us said that?
Seriously, I am not biting your balls because of what pisses me off. I seriously have no idea what you are talking about.
That is not how I feel, this pale imitation thing. If itâs me, please show me the post. If Curly is someone else, please show me the post.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I think you fuck up discussions, yes. I donât think there was a time that felt like a Golden Age for me. Youâve always been here. I have no time here before you. The apartment came furnished.
No, itâs Kids. Something I just made up one day to encompass my reaction to what I construe to be minds that are not even remotely challenging. Or their âcontributionsâ tend to consist of youtube videos. Urwrongx1000 and his rabid, declamatory liberals-are-scum-dog posts.
As for the "real philosophers here â or what I call the âserious philosophersâ â they often have very sophisticated and challenging minds. Karpel Tunnel for example. But in regard to the things that most preoccupy me from my signature threads, they almost never come down out of the clouds. The Magnus Anderson types.
Still, Iâm ever and always stuck with admitting that my own posts here are little more than subjective âexistential contraptionsâ in turn.
âŠ, if there is curly, there should really be the other two, mo, and Larry.
Why curly? Because he does real philosophy, or maybe reel philosophy.
The latter is a good metaphor for cutting out the least desirable , unphilosophical parts, that may not fit into a club atmosphere.
But it is what it is, and bringing things down to basics has been the aim of no less illustrative thinkers then. those positive about simplicity for itâs own sake.
But that it doesnât or canât hold too much water anymore , is just a reminder that all schools of thought have to change with the times !
Once again, I have no idea what point you are making here, but it does allow me to bring this thread back up to the top. And maybe this time Wendy will take the bait.
Iâm sticking ito point , to put 'weirdness" â into. contexts which may dampen enthusiasm ,to the point , where other opinions can coexist on the same plane
Please bring her on .or rather, why shouls she take the bait?
On one hand You are seeking some sort of validation , and on the other quing her that is is a bait that she should avoid,., .
I really canât tell if You are trying to form a socially objective distaste for my point of view, or attempting to ground what appears to You to be some kind. of intentional bait that has You in mind as an object.
Regardless, it is not a match of wits in looking for, but mutual understanding.
My correspondence with iambigious I can be said to mirror the larger values within which such ideas can be floated: my emphasis is in trying to find elements that stress mutual understanding, not devisive tactics of evasive and divisive rhetoric.
And then again, even if I may be wrong, I do not reject a continuation do to fears of not winning the narrative.
( Because in a substantial discussion, winning of loosing is eclipsed by coming to terms.)
The general political climate is reflected in this era of distrust from ambiguous power plays , insecurity , apathetic feelings within contexts that do not admit exits.
And it cam be said, if such appears as a projection with which no one can honestly identify, then such a position needs to be redifined as an illusion.
My motto being, unlike one that proclaims my way, or an unwitting high way, I do not suggest the possibility of being wrong, but welcome the chance to be proven as such, as the derivation from one to the other is phenomenally irreducible.
