Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote: least I haven't been banned yet,

Yes, that you haven't been banned yet proves that this forum has pretty low standards.

Mortalsfool wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Just to mention, just under half the world's population is technically 'older than most'. It's called passing the median age of a population.

I'm not sure what constitutes 'being old', since I meet many that are younger than I in years, with old bodies and heads; I'm 79.

Well, I have a saying for that; it doesn't get any older than dead. But yeah, you're a goodly age for an extant.

Welcome. The greatest divide in discussions is not doubt, I don't think so, I think everyone's pretty clear on their thinking, I think it is imagination, ego, truth, trying to make others look down and yourself up, not complimenting enough but competing even in the face of posts more brilliant than yours, taking criticism when we should have been complimented instead for our own beautiful posts, differing viewpoints and not trying to understand another's viewpoint or trying to etcetera. So the divide in discussion has to do with a lot of things.

Mortalsfool wrote:I am Jack

Welcome, Jack...

Radical doubt, eh?

Sure your name isn't really "Rene"?

Beauty wrote:Welcome. The greatest divide in discussions is not doubt, I don't think so, I think everyone's pretty clear on their thinking, I think it is imagination, ego, truth, trying to make others look down and yourself up, not complimenting enough but competing even in the face of posts more brilliant than yours, taking criticism when we should have been complimented instead for our own beautiful posts, differing viewpoints and not trying to understand another's viewpoint or trying to etcetera. So the divide in discussion has to do with a lot of things.

Beauty, thanks for the welcome!

I think that you may be confusing or mixing up, participants engaged in philosophic 'discussion' and those who harbor the 'inability to listen', or consider a soundly proposed 'view. If a person is busy preparing his ego's defense of his present view, while 'listening' or 'reading' a philosophic offering, he is rendered impossible at offering either compliment or sound question; he is not partaking in philosophy!

To a philosopher, not being complimented or questioned is the normal fare. A person who bolsters his own ego, prepares himself for argument against what 'he thinks you are going to say'. The fact that they didn't hear or see what was actually proposed, has no effect on their willingness to argue from their point of absolute ignorance regarding "the point".

jack

Mortalsfool wrote:

Beauty wrote:Welcome. The greatest divide in discussions is not doubt, I don't think so, I think everyone's pretty clear on their thinking, I think it is imagination, ego, truth, trying to make others look down and yourself up, not complimenting enough but competing even in the face of posts more brilliant than yours, taking criticism when we should have been complimented instead for our own beautiful posts, differing viewpoints and not trying to understand another's viewpoint or trying to etcetera. So the divide in discussion has to do with a lot of things.

Beauty, thanks for the welcome!

I think that you may be confusing or mixing up, participants engaged in philosophic 'discussion' and those who harbor the 'inability to listen', or consider a soundly proposed 'view. If a person is busy preparing his ego's defense of his present view, while 'listening' or 'reading' a philosophic offering, he is rendered impossible at offering either compliment or sound question; he is not partaking in philosophy!

To a philosopher, not being complimented or questioned is the normal fare. A person who bolsters his own ego, prepares himself for argument against what 'he thinks you are going to say'. The fact that they didn't hear or see what was actually proposed, has no effect on their willingness to argue from their point of absolute ignorance regarding "the point".

jack

No, I did not confuse the issue, perhaps you are not clear on it. But I do happen to understand when my post has been very good.

Beauty wrote: No, I did not confuse the issue, perhaps you are not clear on it. But I do happen to understand when my post has been very good.

Careful, your ego is showing.

As I happen to know I don't have ego. But the fact that you for no reason would like to show me as having one, only goes to show that you for sure have ego!

Mortalsfool wrote:doubt about a person's credentials

Do prophetic credentials count?

Beauty wrote:As I happen to know I don't have ego. But the fact that you for no reason would like to show me as having one, only goes to show that you for sure have ego! By the way I'm 56 years old. Now would you like to compete with that?

I'm 69, if you want to have a pissing contest go ahead, you go first so that I can laugh at you.

Beauty wrote: By the way I'm 56 years old.

Do you take a half a Viagra, so that you don't pee on your shoe?

I just love the way you guys conduct your philosophic discussions. Ego's are teaching me great things. I didn't know that we could decide when our posts 'are great'. I always thought that it didn't count for shit when we compliment ourselves on either our posts, or characters. Here I always thought we could only value compliments from others; little did I know! I always thought self-praise stunk. Oh well, such are the philosophy forums on the net.

I do however, differentiate philosophic accomplishments from arguments where you can't express a first-person view of the subject matter. The only way an argument can be sound, is if both sides understand 'both positions'. Otherwise it results in an ego trying to disprove what it doesn't understand, and is destined to end in a personal attack.

jack
a poor old soul looking for wisdom

Mortalsfool wrote:I just love the way you guys conduct your philosophic discussions. Ego's are teaching me great things. I didn't know that we could decide when our posts 'are great'. I always thought that it didn't count for shit when we compliment ourselves on either our posts, or characters. Here I always thought we could only value compliments from others; little did I know! I always thought self-praise stunk. Oh well, such are the philosophy forums on the net.

I do however, differentiate philosophic accomplishments from arguments where you can't express a first-person view of the subject matter. The only way an argument can be sound, is if both sides understand 'both positions'. Otherwise it results in an ego trying to disprove what it doesn't understand, and is destined to end in a personal attack.

jack
a poor old soul looking for wisdom

Philosophical discussions? are you kidding? we're just warming up. I've learned a lot here about ad hominems and other logical fallacies, and I'm sure I'll read many more examples. This forum has been a real education on how not to post.

thedoc wrote:

Beauty wrote: By the way I'm 56 years old.

Do you take a half a Viagra, so that you don't pee on your shoe?

I don't, but maybe you do! Projecting your own insecurities on to me eh? Anyways, I don't have to respond to obscenity on the forums, so I will not argue with you on this forum ever!

Beauty wrote: so I will not argue with you on this forum ever!

Good for you, that's just one more useless participant that I can ignore.