Page 2 of 2
Re: Why philosophy is claptrap.
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:23 pm
by thedoc
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:You know, I've been thinking. Most of the conversations we have, on the philosophy forum, are far more interesting than the articles featured on Philosophy Now. What a strange little primitive tradition, to withhold information from the public. What I meant by censor is they withhold information to non-subscribers as part of their business model. Not offering free information is a primitive relic.
You know, it's akin to a bunch of hipsters sitting down at the cafe, arguing at each other about trivial issues. The arguing could be forgiven, if the content wasn't so trite and run of the mill.
What a strange tradition, to only share limited information and withhold other information simply because it has no discerned monetary value. They don't spread our information because they don't consider us part of their inner circle or business model. How primitive. Would it be the end of the world if they just, I don't know, shared a couple of our quality posts in their magazine?
No, it wouldn't. It would only be the end of petty traditions.
Add publishing and forum hosting to the list of things you have absolutely no understanding of, to call selecting articles and allowing members to post on a forum as some kind of censorship is just about as far down the evolutionary scale you can get. your first mistake was trying to think, something you are totally unequipped for. Publishers can only print articles that have been submitted to them, a forum can only monitor the posts that are made, there may be a notice that posts can be published in the magazine, but I don't see one and without that being stated up front the publisher can't use a post without permission of the author.
Re: Why philosophy is claptrap.
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:58 pm
by GreatandWiseTrixie
thedoc wrote:GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:You know, I've been thinking. Most of the conversations we have, on the philosophy forum, are far more interesting than the articles featured on Philosophy Now. What a strange little primitive tradition, to withhold information from the public. What I meant by censor is they withhold information to non-subscribers as part of their business model. Not offering free information is a primitive relic.
You know, it's akin to a bunch of hipsters sitting down at the cafe, arguing at each other about trivial issues. The arguing could be forgiven, if the content wasn't so trite and run of the mill.
What a strange tradition, to only share limited information and withhold other information simply because it has no discerned monetary value. They don't spread our information because they don't consider us part of their inner circle or business model. How primitive. Would it be the end of the world if they just, I don't know, shared a couple of our quality posts in their magazine?
No, it wouldn't. It would only be the end of petty traditions.
Add publishing and forum hosting to the list of things you have absolutely no understanding of, to call selecting articles and allowing members to post on a forum as some kind of censorship is just about as far down the evolutionary scale you can get. your first mistake was trying to think, something you are totally unequipped for. Publishers can only print articles that have been submitted to them, a forum can only monitor the posts that are made, there may be a notice that posts can be published in the magazine, but I don't see one and without that being stated up front the publisher can't use a post without permission of the author.
You seem like a simpleminded simpleton to the max. If author permissions is a problem, why not send the author a PM. Or keep with your rabbling about rules and regulations, the bane of any kind of progress indeed. Rules and regulations, publishers can only do this, publishers can only do that, simple minded, narrow minded human babbletalk. It's very simple, if it's an issue, why send them a PM. Did the thought never cross your mind.
Do you find yourself special with your deep understanding of the humans trivial and pathetic social norms?
Honestly, you have never have anything good, original or anything controversial, besides being annoying. I may troll but I am a much higher level troll than you. You never ever ever have anything of value and it's just not entertaining to read. Ever. All you do is give me disappointment, over and over. Like a continuous feeling of "what the fuck is this shit, how pathetic." or a continuous feeling of facepalm and wanting to bash something onto the wall. Would it hurt to surprise me, just for once, and say something that isn't utterly pissful.
Why do you resist my suggestion for our posts to be in the magazine? It
would be like shooting yourself in the foot, though we both know your posts are too short to ever be featured. I can't recall most anything from you longer than 2 sentences. Just a simpleton interfering with good progress with their "understanding" of rules and regs. Your understanding is worthless and it clouds your judgement too. I see things that need to be done. You however, are too busy surrounding yourself the delusions and petty customs of the apelike race.
You don't even have an avatar. Go back to clown school and try again. You're just boring and in your old age you somehow fail at humor which is odd actually. Too reserved in my opinion, you don't have what it takes. I sense much fear in you...
Re: Why philosophy is claptrap.
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:59 pm
by Greylorn Ell
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
As for beon, I wonder if your beon is actually an alien spirit. Regardless, neither beon nor gods can make "choices", the very idea of choice is impossible in every regard.
Trix,
No doubt it is. IMO beons have the true power of uniqueness. Most are constrained by their limited, well programmed brains and cannot think far beyond those constraints. Now and then I try to venture outside.
You seem pretty foxholed on your opinion about choices. There is more for you to learn, should you become ready to do so.
BTW humans do not "have" a beon. Beon is a different and more effectively defined entity than the religionists' soul. The correct perspective is that you are a beon who has a brain-body mechanism.
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Greylorn Ell wrote:
Of course I have problems with women. I'm a guy; it comes with the sexual territory. I love dancing and conversing with them, but know better than to bring one home.
So if you don't bring her home, where do you do it? The garage?
With a vehicle available to hit open roads and byways amid mile-high mountains under skies illuminated by a magnificent and mysterious universe, only a mechanic would be screwing in a garage.
Re: Why philosophy is claptrap.
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:06 pm
by GreatandWiseTrixie
Greylorn Ell wrote:GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
As for beon, I wonder if your beon is actually an alien spirit. Regardless, neither beon nor gods can make "choices", the very idea of choice is impossible in every regard.
Trix,
No doubt it is. IMO beons have the true power of uniqueness. Most are constrained by their limited, well programmed brains and cannot think far beyond those constraints. Now and then I try to venture outside.
You seem pretty foxholed on your opinion about choices. There is more for you to learn, should you become ready to do so.
BTW humans do not "have" a beon. Beon is a different and more effectively defined entity than the religionists' soul. The correct perspective is that you are a beon who has a brain-body mechanism.
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Greylorn Ell wrote:
Of course I have problems with women. I'm a guy; it comes with the sexual territory. I love dancing and conversing with them, but know better than to bring one home.
So if you don't bring her home, where do you do it? The garage?
With a vehicle available to hit open roads and byways amid mile-high mountains under skies illuminated by a magnificent and mysterious universe, only a mechanic would be screwing in a garage.
Car sex? Gross.
Already knew that beons spectate humans and not the other way around, but thanks for clarifying for the others. Some people seem to hold the deluded belief the finite body somehow is the ultimate of all things. I never once believed that, it's just ridiculous really. Wasn't sure about beons at first, still, I always knew the human body was not the end of all things. How pathetic really.
There's no such thing as choice, I'd like to hear your opinion on it though.
Re: Why philosophy is claptrap.
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:07 pm
by Arising_uk
Greylorn Ell wrote:...
As far as I could stand to read, ...
Which just about sums you up and makes her later points about critical thinking all the more apposite.
I wonder how many blow jobs it took to get this philosophical nonsense into a "magazine" that pretends to be about honest philosophy?
If you'd have taken your antediluvian patriarchal goggles off and bothered to read on you would have got the point, as it is you've aptly demonstrated how ones prior beliefs work to produce selective reading and confirmation bias.
Re: Why philosophy is claptrap.
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:30 pm
by HexHammer
Greylorn Ell wrote:The most recent PNow includes an article by an alleged philosopher beginning with this:
HOW TO THINK
Critical Reasoning
Your entire post has nothing to do with critical reasoning, it's more common sense, if you actually had the ability to critically reason, then you should realize that 99% of all post in various philosophy forums would have zero relevance and are only cozy chat. You would realize that 80% are utterly stupid and would say stupid things, never gets wiser, why it's best to keep them on ignore.
You don't have the ability to critically reason, nor do anyone here really have it but me.
Re: Why philosophy is claptrap.
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:49 pm
by GreatandWiseTrixie
HexHammer wrote:Greylorn Ell wrote:The most recent PNow includes an article by an alleged philosopher beginning with this:
HOW TO THINK
Critical Reasoning
Your entire post has nothing to do with critical reasoning, it's more common sense, if you actually had the ability to critically reason, then you should realize that 99% of all post in various philosophy forums would have zero relevance and are only cozy chat. You would realize that 80% are utterly stupid and would say stupid things, never gets wiser, why it's best to keep them on ignore.
You don't have the ability to critically reason, nor do anyone here really have it but me.
So humble.
It's called journalism. You wade through 99 percent of boring to get the something worth writing.
Re: Why philosophy is claptrap.
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:45 pm
by Advocate
>What kind of philosopher believes in censorship?
the bad kind
Re: Why philosophy is claptrap.
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:51 pm
by Advocate
>P.Now is a business, not a government funded bullshit operation. It has the right to control the material it publishes, to censor and reject freely.
I reject that assumption. It is not possible for there to be a right to mislead others for money. Businesses are only allowed to exist for the good of society, it's why they're afforded special rules and protections the rest of us don't have, like limited liability. The fact that capitalists have convinced weak minds that the profit motive is primary means they're not simple businesses any longer, they're a fucking mafia.
Re: Why philosophy is claptrap.
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:57 pm
by Advocate
>Since experience has taught me that when a paper, article, or book begins with nonsense, it invariably ends with garbage and wastes my time, I read no further than the stuff on which I commented.
>I can easily write an article that begins with stupid assertions, then inform any residual readers later on that I actually knew better. So what? Is that the only point of the article?
You are not alone. Any reasonably intelligent and connected individual should have reached that conclusion very quickly. Also, any reasonable article will not spew bullshit for a while in hopes that their readers will continue reading to get to a larger point. They must have assumed that their points would seem moderately acceptable and hoped to pull a quick switch later to wow pathetic minds. Also, any reasonably intelligent mind would not continue reading something that makes no sense even on an introductory level, it's simply inefficient
Re: Why philosophy is claptrap.
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:01 pm
by Advocate
>Of course I'm arrogant-- at least about the things I'm good at.
It's not arrogance if you're actually correct. The Truth doesn't play by the same rules as everything else. When you're right you can only lose in compromise. I've learned that lesson the hard way. :/