Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 5:30 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:04 pm Your attempt to paint determinism as an “appeal to weakness” is just another version of the same tired Nietzschean machismo—as if seeing reality clearly and rationally is some kind of moral failing. But tell me, what exactly is strong about clinging to metaphysical crutches, mystical justifications, and poetic fatalism? What’s empowering about throwing up your hands and declaring suffering noble rather than asking what causes it and how to prevent it?

Not quite. I regard your philosophy, your philosophical shtick, as partially-deranged. And what powers it is something psychological. The “psychological” must be considered when any one of us analyzes our positions. Psychology determines outlooks to a large degree.

Your philosophy certainly appeals to one man who defines himself as weak. And I refer to that man as “emblematic of our age”. True, that’s painting things with a broad brush. But the point has some validity.

Manly attitude, manly decisiveness, a manly resoluteness in the face of difficulty and trial: yes indeed, I advocate for that. And I advocate for swift and decisive punishment for wrong-doing. Justice at times must overstep leniency.

seeing reality clearly and rationally

Ah ha! But you do not see either clearly nor sufficiently rationally. Pieces are missing. And your philosophy is “skewed”.

about clinging to metaphysical crutches, mystical justifications, and poetic fatalism?

You misunderstand why I hold to metaphysics. It is a much needed counter to pure physicalism. But both are a pair, if you catch my drift.

You throw around words like “scientistic Ponzi Scheme” and “virulent rhetoric” as if explaining how reality actually works is some sort of manipulative power play rather than an attempt to understand and improve the human condition. And in classic fashion, when faced with a view that challenges yours, you don’t engage with the argument—you psychoanalyze the person making it.

What you are saying is “I know how reality works!” but I say you have a partial view.

It is ridiculous to project onto me the false idea that I do not want to improve conditions. But: you are arguing against Windmills (again if you catch my drift).

The real irony? You claim to champion “strength” and “rigor,” yet your entire approach is built on retreating into mysticism the moment the physical world doesn’t conform to your grand vision. You prefer poetic fatalism over actual solutions. That’s not strength—it’s resignation dressed up as wisdom.

No. The mysticism I describe is a way to understand Reality in a more holistic and therefore genuinely realistic way.

In my view your entire philosophy is non-realistic. (Or largely so).

Alexis, your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance. You dismiss science as "partially deranged" while clinging to vague metaphysical rambling that doesn’t amount to anything more than self-indulgent poetry. You claim to counter "pure physicalism" with mysticism, as if reality cares about your philosophical insecurities.

You have nothing but hand-waving abstractions that don’t explain anything. Meanwhile, science actually explains how the world works—it builds technology, cures diseases, sends humans to space. What has your mystical fatalism ever accomplished? Nothing. It’s just a glorified excuse to reject real answers in favor of comforting illusions.

Your obsession with "manliness" and "decisiveness" is just window dressing for anti-intellectual posturing. You conflate understanding reality with "weakness" because you can’t handle the fact that the universe doesn’t conform to your grandiose fantasies. Your whole worldview is built on dodging real challenges by retreating into pseudo-profundities about "holistic realism"—whatever that means.

Let’s be clear: you don’t have a more complete perspective—you have no perspective at all. You mistake willful ignorance for "higher understanding" and call science "skewed" because it doesn’t leave room for your detached, mystical rambling. In reality, you fear the truth—because it doesn’t care about your illusions.

"Hey, AJ. How are the cocktail parties?"

Charming, intellectual, and filled with stimulating conservation over a wide variety of interesting and incredibly important subjects including but not limited to how Marx failed to the discover the metaphysical foundation of existence and instead became enemy numero uno to wealthy cocktail party goers all over the world. I've never even been to one, and i know that, Gary.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:14 pm "Hey, AJ. How are the cocktail parties?"

Charming, intellectual, and filled with stimulating conservation over a wide variety of interesting and incredibly important subjects including but not limited to how Marx failed to the discover the metaphysical foundation of existence and instead became enemy numero uno to wealthy cocktail party goers all over the world. I've never even been to one, and i know that, Gary.

Have you ever been to a house party?

Gary. I am the house party.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:21 pm Gary. I am the house party.

Have you never been to a party with other people?

Because far far more people now and in the history of the erf have been to a party with other people, a more parsimonious thinker would have just assumed i have and not asked that question.

I believe that the reasonableness of such questioning is directly proportionate to the type and frequency of unliklihood of the thing not happening. For example, you would absolutely never ever ever ask me if I've ever taken a breath. But you might ask me if I've ever been in a hot air balloon. Only the second questioning is reasonable and parsimonious; it does not ask unnecessarily.

Being at a party with people is somewhere on the spectrum between these two but very much closer to taking a breath.

Oh sorry. Yes, I have been to parties with other people.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:02 pm Oh sorry. Yes, I have been to parties with other people.

I have too. I just thought maybe you lived in severe deprivation of friendship and companionship.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:06 pm Let’s be clear: you don’t have a more complete perspective—you have no perspective at all. You mistake willful ignorance for "higher understanding" and call science "skewed" because it doesn’t leave room for your detached, mystical rambling. In reality, you fear the truth—because it doesn’t care about your illusions.

No, I “strongly suggest” that you are skewed. Science is science.

You are right though: I do fear a world full of men who do not understand how much man is a metaphysical creature.

This conversation (over the months) has been very helpful for me personally in so many ways.

It has augmented my own certainties not diminished them.

"I just thought maybe you lived in severe deprivation of friendship and companionship."

Well, i think that's a fine question, and I'd be obliged to answer it quite frankly.

I have no real-time friends and haven't since about 2006ish. The last 'relationship' i was in ended around 2009ish. My interaction with people is limited to my customers, a sickening cat lady and clerks at gas stations. The old man dropped me from his will and i haven't talked to em in over fifteen years. Still waiting on the old lady to die. I tried some meetup groups a couple years ago and was unimpressed, so stopped going. That, and i have this almost shizoparanoia that somehow everybody around me thinks I'm a child molester.... so I'm very reserved around people, suspiciously so. I'm the 'what's up with that guy' guy. It's a kind of psychosis that's developed from being a SO. I feel like if i start getting to know someone beyond a superficial level, I'll have to explain everything, and they won't believe me. The thought of that infurtiates me, so i don't even make it possible.

Yup, 'bout seventeen years now of solitude, i reckon. Why do you think i hang out at philosophy forums? So i can find some clown to fuck with. Duh.

Wait, that's not entirely right. Out of these years, approx 6 were spent in the company of prison inmates. You can count that as 'socializing', but i don't. The ones that didn't repulse me i was indifferent toward.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:21 pm Nazi Germany was a product of Nietzsche and Heidegger. Nationalism. Race. Strength. In effect, Social Darwinism.

You sure about that?

I'm tellin' ya, haus, one of the hardest things to do is put yourself into a position where someone's good manner toward you does not generate from a genuine interest and admiration of you but from a sense of pity toward you.

My pride has never experienced an assault greater than this, and insult greater than this; that someone might only bother with me because they believe i am a pedophile and sexual deviant who deserves at least some pity for being so sick.

Now you know how much i love irony, but this one is just extraordinary. That someone very likely not worth the sweat on my balls is made able to believe themselves better than me and in doing so, the actual matter of fact is unequivocally reversed. But worse, they can't know this. The feeling of pity and revulsion is real, see. These little insignificant nobodies any day on the street actually feel superior in my presence. It's absolutely insane. They look down their noses at me. Me. I'm like five of this guy in every way and he doesn't even know this. Of course this, too, is the fault of the state for making and/or letting him think I'm a perv. Here's a guy I could really help stop being a nobody who now doesn't have that opportunity because he's been artificially made to fear and loathe me. This is not fair to him.

They think I'm a perv. I think they're the pervs... in far deeper ways that extend in many philosophical directions, inexplicable to them precisely because of their perversion and complete misunderstanding of damn near everything... including and certainly human sexuality.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:57 pm Wait, that's not entirely right. Out of these years, approx 6 were spent in the company of prison inmates. You can count that as 'socializing', but i don't. The ones that didn't repulse me i was indifferent toward.

FWIW, I do not regard you as a “child molester”. It all depends on the age of consent, the state, and the country.

And I am curious: was it while locked up that you did all or a great deal of your reading?

I was philosophically adept long before prison. I was also too pissed off to worry myself with reading philosophy if any were around in the libraries. All prison did was crystalize what i found in N's work already and show me the worst of what a capitalist society could produce. There was no need to go much further. Nor even a desire, really.