Philosophy Now Forum

OK, mate. In a spirit of reconciliation I'm willing to put the knuckledusters back in my pocket for the time being and give you a chance to explain yourself. Which one of my (erhum) formulations seems to you to be the most questionable?

I have been explaining myself for a week or more. I suggest that you read (better) what has been written. Setting up an interrogation-session is an interesting way to invoke 'a spirit of reconciliation', however you could just as well pick out any part of things I've written and simply comment. Keep in mind though that you don't direct this or any conversation, with me anyway.

What 'cultural zeitgeist' does that arise out of?

Obvious Leo wrote:...and this inevitable vanity is doubly so for wordsmiths who like to regard their words as their toys as much as their tools. Philosophy is not a game to me but a deadly serious business.

Ok but hold on. A few minutes ago you described yourself as a 'pompous windbag'. Now you are a philosopher in a very serious endeavor. Which statement is the 'true' one? What do you mean?

Deadly serious business. You agree certainly that 'ideas have consequences'?

"Will the real (designated) human snake please pick up a courtesy phone and make himself known to the authorities."

Can't be you Inglorious. Or have I missed some of your slithering?

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:...and this inevitable vanity is doubly so for wordsmiths who like to regard their words as their toys as much as their tools. Philosophy is not a game to me but a deadly serious business.

Ok but hold on. A few minutes ago you described yourself as a 'pompous windbag'. Now you are a philosopher in a very serious endeavor. Which statement is the 'true' one? What do you mean?

Deadly serious business. You agree certainly that 'ideas have consequences'?

I see now that you prefer one dimensional people, you would be quite happy in lineland.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: A few minutes ago you described yourself as a 'pompous windbag'.

At various times throughout my life it has been suggested to me that my writing style occasionally projects me in this light and under scrupulous self-examination I accept that this is not always an unfair criticism. It's something I'm conscious of and try to avoid but my craft is always a work in progress, Gustav, and old habits die hard. My enthusiasm for hyperbole often stands in the way of my need for clarity. However when I say that philosophy is a serious business to me I intend that this statement should be taken absolutely literally. Naturally you are free to either believe me or call me a liar in accordance with your own preference.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:You agree certainly that 'ideas have consequences'?

All consequences for humans are the consequences of ideas.

Naturally you are free to either believe me or call me a liar in accordance with your own preference.

No one lies, not on these fora. They alwsys act and write 'in good faith', as dissonance toward truth and honesty is too costly, too hard to maintain. I'd not call anyone a liar. But some people seem 'partially informed' or 'badly informed' and sometimes 'not enough serious'.

Obvious Leo wrote:Thank you for your gracious words, Lacewing. Everybody likes it when others say nice things about them, and this inevitable vanity is doubly so for wordsmiths who like to regard their words as their toys as much as their tools. Philosophy is not a game to me but a deadly serious business. However this doesn't mean we shouldn't be having a bit of fun in the process of transacting it.

My I remind you of the sentiment from another thread. Move on there is nothing to see here.

It's good advice lest you get blown away by all that hot air from the right.