Philosophy Now Forum

ken wrote:

HexHammer wrote:- why must it be observed? And exactly what is universal about this altruism that he describes? That's nothing but poetry in itself, and no philosophy, as philosophy is = "love of wisdom", which a harsh generalisation isn't in itself. What exactly is universal egoism? That's poetry too, neither are described in psychology, and you should know that psychology describes human nature.
..thus OP ends up speaking straight out of his ass already in the first line, thus it only gets worse with each line.

Although I wholeheartedly agree with you that 'philosophy' = 'love of wisdom', and I was also wondering why MUST universal altruism be observed, I did not ask you anything about any of this. In case you missed what I actually meant when I wrote, "What would be not incoherent, not nonsense and not babble to you hexhammer, I meant exactly that. I am literally asking you what IS coherent, makes sense and IS not babble to you?

What you have provided is an explanation of what IS incoherent, nonsense and babble to you. Can you see the difference between what I asked you and what you have provided?

I am seriously curious to know what actually IS coherent, makes sense, and is not babble to hexhammer. The reason I am curious to know this is to see if it is coherent, makes sense and is not babble to all other human beings also.

ken wrote:Coherent, sensible, and quietly true.

I ask you to clarify because you are contradicting yourself. So how can I give an answer if you have such weird view of the situation?

HexHammer wrote:

ken wrote:

HexHammer wrote:- why must it be observed? And exactly what is universal about this altruism that he describes? That's nothing but poetry in itself, and no philosophy, as philosophy is = "love of wisdom", which a harsh generalisation isn't in itself. What exactly is universal egoism? That's poetry too, neither are described in psychology, and you should know that psychology describes human nature.
..thus OP ends up speaking straight out of his ass already in the first line, thus it only gets worse with each line.

Although I wholeheartedly agree with you that 'philosophy' = 'love of wisdom', and I was also wondering why MUST universal altruism be observed, I did not ask you anything about any of this. In case you missed what I actually meant when I wrote, "What would be not incoherent, not nonsense and not babble to you hexhammer, I meant exactly that. I am literally asking you what IS coherent, makes sense and IS not babble to you?

What you have provided is an explanation of what IS incoherent, nonsense and babble to you. Can you see the difference between what I asked you and what you have provided?

I am seriously curious to know what actually IS coherent, makes sense, and is not babble to hexhammer. The reason I am curious to know this is to see if it is coherent, makes sense and is not babble to all other human beings also.

ken wrote:Coherent, sensible, and quietly true.

I ask you to clarify because you are contradicting yourself.

How do you think I am contradicting myself?

I wrote a five word sentence. Admittingly it was in direction opposition of yours, on purpose. This is a complete contradiction of your view but it obvioisly is not a contradiction of my self.

I asked you a question. That is also not a contradiction.

HexHammer wrote:So how can I give an answer if you have such weird view of the situation?

What is the so called "weird" view? And if my view is wierd or not, that has nothing at all to do with you clarifying your view and answering my question. So, how you can give an answer is very easily. That is, of course, if you can.

Either you can answer my question or you can not. Your continual attempt at side-stepping this issue is not doing you any favours. The truth is becoming more obvious.

Ken ..no one can be that stupid, you MUST be trolling!

HexHammer wrote:Ken ..no one can be that stupid, you MUST be trolling!

I think you will, and hope you will, discover that I am NOT trolling. So, according to you that does make Me that stupid.

Now, no matter how stupid or not I am, I would still like you to clarify what I have been asking you from the onset.

Are you still TRYING to avoid answering the most simplest of question I asked to you? Again, you have on numerous occasions responded to different people with, "Incoherent, nonsense, and babble". All I asked of you is what IS coherent, makes sense, and IS not babble to you? What exactly could possibly be so hard about that question that you are either unable to answer or unwilling to?

And now you are TRYING to avoid further clarifying questions asked to you?

You said I was contradicting myself. I asked, "How do you think I am contradicting myself"? Instead of trying to deflect answering this by alluding to Me as doing something else other than asking you to clarify, why do you not just clarify? Whereabouts do you think I have contradicted myself?

You also said I have such a weird view of the situation. Explain my view? As I recall I never really gave any view. I have just asked rswstanding why they wrote what they did, and, I asked you to clarify what exactly does make sense, is coherent, and is not babble to you. I am still waiting for to answer.

If you do not want to, then that is fine. Just say so. No one is going to make you do anything you do not want to.

If you can not, then that is fine also. I was never expecting YOU could answer that.

ken wrote:Yadda ..yadda ..bla bla ...bla!!

Sorry, if you are not trolling then you are high functional retard, either way it's impossible to have a normal conversation with you, why you force me to put you on ignore.

HexHammer wrote:

ken wrote:Yadda ..yadda ..bla bla ...bla!!

Sorry, if you are not trolling then you are high functional retard, either way it's impossible to have a normal conversation with you, why you force me to put you on ignore.

I NEVER forced you to do anything. All I did was ask you a very simple question.

Also, I was NOT going to private message you so putting Me on so called 'ignore' is not achieving anything.