Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

[Dubious]

What is the human condition?

All in all, the kind that can't last. Nature won't allow it!

[Nick_A]

Here's an idea just to mix things up a bit ... let's start with the premise that everyone has some valid points to make, even if they make mistakes.

What might those valid points be?

I'm still trying to figure out your valid points. It's not easy.

Yes, my ideas are considerably more sophisticated than that to which you are accustomed. Your usual theistic fare tends to be rather simplistic, fluffy and lacking in rigour. Keep reading, keep learning, and you might get there, champ

A legend in her own mind.

[Nick_A]

What is untrue about the above?

Nick, I'm not interested in pursuing this any further with you. Your projections are non-stop -- and we can't get past all of that distortion to find common ground.

It is useful to find common ground when a man is trying to get a woman's pants off. But for those with a love for wisdom, this attempt at feel good compromise destroys it. You rely on inductive bottom up reason to establish your believes. I rely on deductive top down reason to verify my experiences. There is no common ground. Inductive reason allows you to compromise on spirit killing since you do not accept its reality. My deductive experiences have verified its reality so fight for the opportunity for an inner life in the young. There can be no common ground. This is like asking a woman who is being raped six times a week to find common ground with her rapist and compromise by accepting being raped three times a week.

The bottom line is that those like you and Greta have chosen to close your minds to whatever supports freedom from Plato's cave since you have no conception why you reside in it. Should the young be doomed to follow the same path? Your inductive reason says yes and my deductive reason says no. There can be no common ground. The only possibility is understandiung the other side which you are closed to.

[Lacewing]

You think you are finally having a nice chat with him and then - Bam! - this sudden character attack.

Yes! It seems that Nick is unaware (and doesn't care) that he casts people into character roles for whatever story he is projecting and venting. I thought it was nice that he started being able to have some shared conversations -- however, because they are short-lived, I've suspected they are just "for show" (otherwise people wouldn't talk to him at all, as was often the case in the past). I'm guessing he can't sustain the conversation when something is said that threatens the self-glorified platform he stands on, which he must rely on projections to sustain. Fascinating to see the ways that people use their minds for their creations, and (in some cases) to protect those beloved creations at all costs. It's very revealing about the human condition.

[uwot]

You rely on inductive bottom up reason to establish your believes.

In other words, the beliefs are based on experience. Which is a reasonable working definition of wisdom.

I rely on deductive top down reason to verify my experiences.

Which is to say that you make the world conform to your wishes, not by examining it further, to see what it is actually like, but by protecting the beliefs that please you. Which is narcissistic.

There is no common ground. Inductive reason allows you to compromise on spirit killing since you do not accept its reality.

Nonsense. To use inductive reasoning is to accept that it is fallible, and that future experience might change ones mind...

My deductive experiences have verified its reality so fight for the opportunity for an inner life in the young.

...unlike your brand of deductive reasoning, which you believe tells you more about the real world than you can discover by looking at it.
Anyway, apart from persuading absolutely no one on this forum, who's the fight going?

There can be no common ground. This is like asking a woman who is being raped six times a week to find common ground with her rapist and compromise by accepting being raped three times a week.

What charming analogies you concoct.

The bottom line is that those like you and Greta have chosen to close your minds to whatever supports freedom from Plato's cave since you have no conception why you reside in it.

Don't be ridiculous. It is top down rationalisation, such as yours, that is closed to actual evidence.

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7

You are right about purpose, meaning, etc. But did Plato mock people or ask questions?

Yes, but he was too old fashioned. Today we strive for answers we can define as superior because of the education of those preaching them. Why ask questions when experts provide the answers? Those who defy the modern day experts deserve to be mocked. They lack respect for their superiors. What? You say this is more like indoctrination than philosophy? Don't say that too loud or you'll never live it down.

Or I can just ask questions, provide argument, proving the subject discussed to be deficient. The problem with intuition, is that it is strictly subjective to the person experiencing it and most people cannot read eachother's minds.

[Nick_A]

Those posting now won’t appreciate the following from Einstein. They are not alone. Those who are open to the value of deductive reason and intuition and have not yet become psychological prisoners of indoctrination are in the minority and will be ridiculed, Hopefully they will find each other and realize that they are not alone in spite of the growing efficiency in the skill of spirit killing.

Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following a trodden path of thought.
Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts.
Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself.
Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity. Intuition tells man his purpose in this life.
I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now. I have only one interest: to fulfill my purpose here where I am.
This purpose is not given me by my parents or my surroundings. It is induced by some unknown factors. These factors make me a part of eternity.”
~ Albert Einstein
Text Source: Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983). From a series of meetings William Hermanns had with Einstein in 1930, 1943, 1948, and 1954

The modern way and its famed inductive reason justifies verbal abuse and cyber bullying as expressions of philosophy. I'll stick with the old fashioned definition of philosophy as the love of wisdom.

[Greta]

But everyone uses both inductive and deductive reasoning, the consequence of two somewhat specialised brain hemispheres.

[uwot]

Those posting now won’t appreciate the following from Einstein. They are not alone. Those who are open to the value of deductive reason and intuition and have not yet become psychological prisoners of indoctrination are in the minority and will be ridiculed.

If you believe that the next thing you see has the potential to completely change your world view, you cannot be a prisoner of indoctrination. That, in a nutshell, is inductive reasoning. By contrast, it is people who have formed an opinion deductively, and will interpret any empirical fact so that it conforms to their belief, that are imprisoned by their own parochialism.

Hopefully they will find each other and realize that they are not alone in spite of the growing efficiency in the skill of spirit killing.

Seriously Nick, have a look in the mirror and ask yourself: do the people who disagree with you genuinely intend to destroy the spirit of children, or do they just think you're a twat? Frankly, we all know you will decide the former, thereby proving the latter.

[Arising_uk]

...
The modern way and its famed inductive reason justifies verbal abuse and cyber bullying as expressions of philosophy. I'll stick with the old fashioned definition of philosophy as the love of wisdom.

You do know Einstein's talking about science and not philosophy nor your religion don't you?
p.s.
Whatever this 'cyber-bully' nonsense is supposed to be you do it all the time Nick.

[Dubious]

Those posting now won’t appreciate the following from Einstein. They are not alone. Those who are open to the value of deductive reason and intuition and have not yet become psychological prisoners of indoctrination are in the minority and will be ridiculed, Hopefully they will find each other and realize that they are not alone in spite of the growing efficiency in the skill of spirit killing.

Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following a trodden path of thought.
Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts.
Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself.
Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity. Intuition tells man his purpose in this life.
I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now. I have only one interest: to fulfill my purpose here where I am.
This purpose is not given me by my parents or my surroundings. It is induced by some unknown factors. These factors make me a part of eternity.”
~ Albert Einstein
Text Source: Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983). From a series of meetings William Hermanns had with Einstein in 1930, 1943, 1948, and 1954

The modern way and its famed inductive reason justifies verbal abuse and cyber bullying as expressions of philosophy. I'll stick with the old fashioned definition of philosophy as the love of wisdom.

The ONLY thing intelligent in this Einstein quote filled with cliche is I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now.

Albert could never have created his theories without the collusion and blending of deduction, induction AND intuition not to mention a lot of prior work by others. Also the value of his theories absolutely depend on empirical data to confirm them.

Also the quote, Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity. Intuition tells man his purpose in this life is a massively idiotic statement. Intuition is merely that; sometimes it's right and often wrong. Even animals have it but for them it's more potent being more instinctual!

Intellect is as important to advancement as everything else which conspires to create a civilization or a theory. Why is that? Because intellect is the main critical faculty we possess and therefore indispensable to every mental endeavor including intuition.

Einstein's "philosophy" is cliche-ridden and borrow luster only through his theories. Schrödinger and Heisenberg were far more potent in their philosophic thinking than Einstein ever was.

[Nick_A]

OK so uwot does not grasp the relationship between intuition and deductive reason but his explanation of me is classic progressive logic

Seriously Nick, have a look in the mirror and ask yourself: do the people who disagree with you genuinely intend to destroy the spirit of children, or do they just think you're a twat? Frankly, we all know you will decide the former, thereby proving the latter.

Yes, the intent of secular progressive education is to discourage that which promotes the quality of deductive reason leading to the experience of intuition. It must do this in order to make secular indoctrination possible. Those who oppose secular indoctrination are called twats. So Einstein is a twat but what does that mean? Here are the definitions of a twat:

Twat
noun
vulgar slang
1. 1.
a woman's genitals.
2. 2.
a person regarded as stupid or obnoxious.

Apparently there is a correlation between a woman’s genitals and stupid or obnoxious people. It is not a protected collective. That is why stupid or obnoxious women are sometimes called c_nts. Somehow efforts to protect the young from metaphysical repression are associated with a woman’s genitals. A fine expression of progressive logic but somehow I don’t understand it. I have yet to endure progressive education.

[Lacewing]

Apparently there is a correlation between a woman’s genitals and stupid or obnoxious people.

How about dick, pr!ck, and asshole/arse?

[Greta]

Obviously each of us needs both, but I guess denial keep the chat going.

For the record, the word "cnut" (to avoid asterisks for clarity's sake) is simply the most taboo word, seemingly due to patriarchal attitudes towards female sexuality. The biggest taboo in any area will always attract a fanbase.

"Twat" on the other hand is simply a fantastic word, right up there with "gronk" , "twonk" and "gimboid"! Thus its etymology is relatively unimportant to all but those who are highly sensitised to that kind of naughtiness.

[Nick_A]

Obviously each of us needs both, but I guess denial keep the chat going.

For the record, the word "cnut" (to avoid asterisks for clarity's sake) is simply the most taboo word, seemingly due to patriarchal attitudes towards female sexuality. The biggest taboo in any area will always attract a fanbase.

"Twat" on the other hand is simply a fantastic word, right up there with "gronk" , "twonk" and "gimboid"! Thus its etymology is relatively unimportant to all but those who are highly sensitised to that kind of naughtiness.

We need both but secularism must oppose deductive reason on a large scale because it begins with a source for creation and the process of creation follows a lawful involutionary progression. Secularism which has the bottom up Great Beast as its God must oppose large scale deductive reason and rely on inductive reason, verbal abuse, cyber bullying, and other delights to preserve its supremacy.