Philosophy Now Forum

The goaturder wrote:Indeed....
And you ain't seen nothing yet.

I think we've pretty much seen your repertoire by now.

The goaturder wrote:... or when a weakling uses his height or childish schoolyard attacks on Greek women and their beauty to compensate for his emasculated mind. ...

You mean those Greeks who you said were Turkish/Jewish inbreeds and pretty much deserved being strung-up by the Nazis. Those ones? Don't tell me! You are of the stock that escaped this inbreeding.

The goaturder wrote:By using the exaggeration of a few male characteristics without even realizing that to be masculine is an attitude, a way of engaging the world, she exposes herself.
In the process of trying to prove herself a man she does the opposite, as I expected she would and had already many many months ago.

You mean when I politely asked you a few questions about your metaphysic and you reacted by calling me a n***** and a ****?

The goaturder wrote:Gossip, sexual innuendos, like the ones women use to cut down a man who has hurt them, and the usual banter about physicality and preschool taunts.

You really are a big girls blouse as all I say to you is what you've said to me. Whats up? Don't like the mirror?

The goaturder wrote:You see, for this princess, the only way to understand what I am is to put me in a caricature. I am a nationalist, a racist skin-head, a loser bitter because she can't get laid. Everything is reduced down to a level she can relate to, exposing herself with such brilliance.

Nah! In your dreams you're a skinhead. I think of you as this 300lb iron pumping muscle-mary

Did you know that the skins were originally white working-class east-end lads who were copying the Jamican rude-bwoy look, had black mates and loved ska and reggae? Didn't have much time for the bubble tho'

The goaturder wrote:... you must simply evaluate the sophistication of his abstractions; you must study actions.

Oh! We do! We do!

The goaturder wrote:...
With the level of edumucation these days, they'll give those pieces of paper to chimps. It's a business. All they need is asses on the seats and feet on the employment/unemployment lines.

Good job I got it when it wasn't these days then. I've told you, its edumicashun.

The goaturder wrote:Boy was I wrong.
Once I realized that it was not the case I changed my persona. ...

You mean when I asked you some questions about your metaphysic and you lost the plot? Unfortunately for you, your posts are still here for all to read. Don't tell me, they are going to mysteriously vanish in the near future.

The goaturder wrote:These places are not about philosophy, besides some rudimentary recitation of another's views, most often a famous other, they are places the masses gather to reaffirm their common ideals, disagreeing only on the details while the main principles are held to be self-evident. Like Christian biblical studies where the book is never questioned but the debate is over who interprets the holy scripture the best.

Funnily enough this is pretty much what we don't do here, its why I like it. You getting confused about which site you're on?

The goaturder wrote:I am a goaturder, and if you combine it with the avatar I usually use, ... what that snarling wolfie thing? ... you just might get a hint about the caricature I play on-line, and why I play it.
What were satyr's in Greek mythology but, more importantly, what does the Thomas Harris character of Hannibal Lecter represent?

Fiction and the movies now! Your character is your secret alter-ego mate, not some literary artifice.

...
I linked the princess a while back to an interesting BBC documentary about the length of a string...her response:
"The string is as long as I cut it"....this is the type of mind I am dealing with.
The "cup is on the table", the "string is as long as I cut it"...end of story....let us pray.

I watched it when it first came out upon the BBC numbnuts. That you base your philosophy upon science is funny, that you attempt to build a metaphysic upon it is hysterical. I'm surprised you manage to tie your shoe-laces given their infinite length. Don't tell me, you've got those trainers with the velcro straps.

Does he ask Kant for quantification of thing-in-itself? Does he ask him for a Nietzsche for Nitwitsbooklet?

I thought this is what you were writing?

That you equate yourself with Kant is but given your earlier comments to me about academics and studying Kant(or was that one of your acolytes? Easy to get you mixed up).

... Maybe her protruding arse is an invitation. Did she not come because she saw my dick waving? She says so, so I take her word on it.

Arses and now dicks! Tap! Tap!

... The rest of the emasculated freaks ran for the woods when their comfortable "self-evident" ideals were suddenly challenged.
"Did you say 'wilderness'?...that's is, I'm out of here" ...

If I remember right it was you saying you were off to the forest last time? Remember your new years resolution? That you'd never darken this den of nitwits, niggers and retards again? How is that will to power going by the way?

...
You turds should have put me on ignore, like your mates did. Then the cup would have been forever comfortably on the table, and all you would have required to be content was that you can fill it and then empty it's contents.

You wish we'd ignore you so can you can keep spouting your bilious nonsense to your imaginary audience.

I wish you luck drinking in the dark with the goat Bill. Mind your back now and I don't mean that in a gay way.

Douche-Bag wrote:Satyr,
Perhaps I'm overestimating again.

No, Douche-Bag, you've already won.
How can you be wrong when you know the truth?
The cup is on the table has got to be your victory song.

Douche-Bag wrote: I gotta love the pop-psychology being used to construct a safe-haven.

Thanks.

Douche-Bag wrote:I'd pat you on the back, but your hands are in the way. Interesting coping mechanism.

They say imitation is the best form of flattery...but your not-so-pop-psychology is lacking in pizazz.

Douche-Bag wrote:If you, for one, "respect" me too much and take me at my word, then you ought act like it.That'd be a good start.

I am. The "Douche-Bag" is me holding back.
You don't want to know what I really think.

Douche-Bag wrote:Successfully doing such a thing first requires understanding. I suggest that you try again, because you're still arguing with an imaginary opponent. Lose your presuppositions, entertain the notion that you - as do we all - have inherent perceptual/interpretational fallibility.

Douche-bag, now you are using my premises to tell me that I am included in them? No shit.
Douche-Bag you know The Truth, or is it Truth, so the infallibility is yours.

Douche-Bag wrote:Re-read what has been written. Quote my words, and make your objection(s) clear, concise, and coherent.

Douche-Bag, pearls before swine.
I've given an entire link, but you require a personal tutor.

Douche-Bag wrote: I'm talking metaphysics, metacognition, metalanguage, metaethics, etc. Quantifiability would be a plus, and is certainly not a requirement.

Excellent.
Let us proceed.

Douche-Bag wrote:You've mistaken your own interpretations of my objections with the objections themselves, which tells me that you trust your judgmental faculty too much at times.

Are you reading my mind?

When an artist sculpts the form of a female, his sculpture is either more or less accurate. It is a representation and never the female herself.

Douche-Bag wrote:Your earlier ambiguous use of the term "degree", when you talked about 'degrees of awareness', is/was indicative of the obscurity throughout your ruminations.

It is the burden one must endure.
I'm sorry levels or degrees are confusing to an absolutist Douche-Bag such as you, but when one deals with fluidity, one must use metaphor to describe what lies between 1<>2.

Let's say when I measure my dick and I use a ruler with only centimeters the measurement is less precise than you using one with millimeters...of course even the millimeter can be further divided down to more and more precision, never attaining the absolute.

My entire thesis is based on the interpretation of divergence into what we call matter, or different kinds of matter, with all their characteristics.
The different levels of perception determine how much divergence a mind can perceive...and when it interprets this divergence it simplifies it into a color, texture, tone etc.
This depends on the acuity of the sense organ but also on the analytical quality of the mind making sense of all that sense data.

Douche-Bag wrote:I'm asking you to justify your claims. Justification is public.

And I have, but you refuse to read, Douche-Bag...or, more precisely, you have read but you cannot understand or you've mistakenly found flaws you wish to exploit.
What is left is your Socratic interrogation.

Quid pro Quo...
No say, no go.

Douche-Bag wrote:There is no such thing as 'degrees of awareness'.

Brilliant statement.
I would say, "There is no absolute awareness" but only degrees of it.

We both watch a film, The Matrix let's say...you understand the explosions and the gunfights, I get the metaphysical symbolism...and I see the explosions as well.
We both see a cup, you see a solid thing, immutable, in a definite spot, I see a process forever altering forever receding towards entropy.

Douche-Bag wrote:That construct has it's meaning in your mind - which is ok, as long as you can come to meaningful, coherent terms about it.

Indeed, sarcasm noted....yet you still failed to consider what I've said.

Douche-Bag, what is in my mind must reference an ongoing interpretation of reality.
If the mind becomes self-referential, or its begins referring back to the abstractions it has already constructed, then it is slipping towards delusion or solipsism, if the mind maintains a connection to the sensual input it is constantly collecting and forming into newer abstractions, comparing them with the earlier ones, then it is engaged with reality and more lucid.

The closer, in temporal duration, an abstraction is to the reality it I simplifying, the closer it is to the absolute. This is why intelligence is also about speed of perception.

Change is about comparisons; juxtaposing, in a stream of thought, one abstraction with the next and the next and the next.....

Douche-Bag wrote:Such a thing(awareness) cannot be meaningfully talked about in terms of quantifiable increments(degrees), unless one quantifies awareness by attributing some kind of value to the increment.

In fact one can only speak of degrees otherwise he is speaking about absolutes which he must then provide evidence for.

There are degrees of illumination...there are degrees in strength...all value judgments are comparison, Douche-Bag.
I am not omniscient, I am either more or less ignorant than you...and I am not omnipotent, I am either more or less weak than you....or in comparison to an average.

The negative is always the given.

I do not see the entire light spectrum as it goes off into the infrared and ultraviolet, leaving me in the in-between.
So, Douche-Bag, if I see more of the spectrum I see a degree more of it in relation to you.

Douche-Bag wrote:For if we do not know what constitutes a degree, then saying such a thing is empty.

Douche-Bag, a female in the wild does not pull out a graph to measure the superiority of the male, she uses sensual information, comparing him to another.
Douche-Bag, when I say an orange is more sour than another, I do not need to quantify it with a chemical analysis. My senses have evolved to perceive differentiations; my mind is a tool for discriminating. My senses perceive divergence in degree...the more acute my senses are, the more precise or discriminating my awareness is.
If I then invent a code to establish a common standard, is another matter, Douche-Bag.

Douche-Bag when I see a female I say she is beautiful in comparison to another, because, and science has uncovered this, of a hip to waist ration. I do so without even having to take out a measuring device; I do so without having to know math.
Douche-Bag, math does not preexist consciousness. Math is an invention of consciousness. Math is a human standard.

Douche-Bag, when I perceive hardness I am interpreting a degree of change in relation to me and the other. I have evolved the capacity to perceive divergence.
Not everything is equally hard. I can sense the difference without a graph and a technological tool. My senses and brain are tools.
My senses were meant to differentiate.
That I later acquire or am given a codified system to make this differentiation more precise, is another matter, Douche-Bag.
I do not need a science diploma to discern between a heavier and a lighter box...a degree of mass.

Douche-Bag wrote: I simply asked you to do just that; to put your claim about degrees of awareness into more meaningful and coherent terms.

You are so innocent, Douche-Bag.
So humble and well-meaning.
I believe you.

Douche-Bag wrote:What constitutes a degree of awareness?

A broader perceptual horizon.
Douche-Bag, if I see a hair on a fly, and a half blind man can only see the fly, this is a degree of awareness.
Douche-Bag, if we both drink from the same bottle of wine and you think it tastes good or bad whereas I can discern delicate flavors and nuances and can discern where the grapes were grown and how sunny that year was, this is a degree of awareness.

Degree of awareness, Douche-Bag, refers to the details incorporated within the mental models, the abstractions, my mind constructs.
The more details included the more precise the model.

Douche-Bag wrote:If you do not wish to further engage in philosophical debate, but would rather continue to engage in rhetorical musings, dick-waving, and name-calling, then I suggest that you continue to ignore me, keep on imagining your own superiority while patting yourself on the back - whether that be as it is interpreted via your faculty of understanding and/or the mutual masturbation circle jerk between yourself and those who do not know any better.

Douche-Bag, you are not here for that at all...or that's the pretext at this point.

Douche-Bag wrote: If I were to mimic your behavior, venture into human psychology, and analyze you based upon what has transpired here in addition to the article - well... nevermind...

Oh my dear Douche-Bag, your little games and methods of manipulation are dated.

Douche-Bag wrote:Is it time to do philosophy yet?

Douche-Bag you are not here for philosophy...you already know the truth...the cup is on the table.....the string is as long as I cut it.
You are here because I am weak, no?
You come to put me in my place, by using my arrogance. I am overconfident, am I not?
An experienced old fart, like you, can accomplish an easy task like teaching a boy a lesson, can't he?
I'll enjoy the process.

This is why you are here:

Douche-Bag wrote:Now, why would I do that? I love bullys. They're tasty little snacks in my boredom. Ready to venture down off of the porch yet? You need a little more rope?

Thing is you don't say anything, you dare not....and that's not philosophy.
You are here to show the flaws, to critique, to humble me...to lower me down to your kind's level...to make me mediocre. [/size]

Sex?
Age?
Location?

As long as these are not answered, I play.
But that's what you want, no?
Here is a better ploy. To lower my defenses, mention how my defensiveness is a sign of fear.
Use shame, Douche-Bag, be more creative.

creative:

What constitutes a degree of awareness?

A broader perceptual horizon. Douche-Bag, if I see a hair on a fly, and a half blind man can only see the fly, this is a degree of awareness. Douche-Bag, if we both drink from the same bottle of wine and you think it tastes good or bad whereas I can discern delicate flavors and nuances and can discern where the grapes were grown and how sunny that year was, this is a degree of awareness.

So... where is thought/belief in all of this?

Degree of awareness, Douche-Bag, refers to the details incorporated within the mental models, the abstractions, my mind constructs.

So the level of complexity within the constructs of the mind constitutes degrees of awareness?

The more details included the more precise the model.

Really?

No wonder you write so much fucking retarded nonsense. You actually think/believe that that makes it more precise. So... the cup is on the table is not as precise as this...

liniwc hr1 l nehd87 1hvbneu c9r hoqddpnn uhh235um9n 9yhje fh 9h0gqwhdd9uhuuhcpuhuhper 9ehfuhjihbtyd7qtwfgdnemv ewieunfdwe fuwhdpjw nfpi 3ynonbvzcrtdbwegre ciwbdbnwkfek vihwbeh qwd wegherpivbnekv mmwfdiwpigberjb .

Perfect, I understand completely. I beg your pardon for my density. That is sarcasm at work.I have nothing further. Call me an asshole, it's ok I can take it. At least I'm a sensible asshole.

Douche-Bag wrote:So... where is thought/belief in all of this?

Quid pro Quo...

Sex?
Age?
Location?

Douche-Bag wrote:So the level of complexity within the constructs of the mind constitutes degrees of awareness?

Douche-Bag, you are like the princess who had to be told something over and over and over again.[/size]

Douche-Bag wrote:Now, why would I do that? I love bullys. They're tasty little snacks in my boredom. Ready to venture down off of the porch yet? You need a little more rope?

the goaturder wrote:... you are like the princess who had to be told something over and over and over again.

The sign of an intelligent mind and communicator is that if something nots working do something different and a superior one understands that the meaning of ones words are the response they get. But then you're not actually trying to communicate are you mary.

I am being reminded here of conversations both in the distant and more recent past in which there was a lady, Joe bless her, who completely believed that the government was bad. So naturally, she buys into all of the conspiracy theories.

Did I say all...

Satyr reminds me of her, not due to the igonorance, but rather due to what is called confirmation bias. The thing about virtual hangings is that s/he who is being strung up does not necessarily realize it when they're dead.

Mencken, H.L wrote:All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be, democratic, then it seeks to protect that man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.

Freud, Sigmund wrote:We believe that civilization has been created under the pressure of the exigencies of life at the cost of satisfaction of the instincts.

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:He who has attained to only some degree of freedom of mind cannot feel other than a wanderer on the earth- though not as a traveller to a final destination: for this destination does not exist. But he will watch and observe and keep his eyes open to see what is really going on in the world; for this reason he may not let his heart adhere too firmly to any individual thing; within him too there must be something wandering that takes pleasure in change and transience. Such a man will, to be sure, experience bad nights, when he is tired and finds the gate of the town that should offer him rest closed against him; perhaps in addition the desert will, as in the Orient, reach right up to the gate, beasts of prey howl now farther off, now closer to, a strong wind arise, robbers depart with his beasts of burden. Then dreadful night may sink down upon the desert like a second desert, and his heart grow weary of wandering. When the morning sun then rises, burning like a god of wrath, and the gate of the town opens to him, perhaps he will behold in the faces of those who dwell there even more desert, dirt, deception, insecurity than lie outside the gate- and the day will be almost worse than the night. Thus it may be that the wanderer shall fare; but then, as recompense, there will come the joyful mornings of other days and climes, when he shall see, even before the light has broken, the Muses come dancing by him in the mist of the mountains, when afterwards, if he relaxes quietly beneath the trees in the equanimity of his soul at morning, good and bright things will be thrown down to him from the tops and leafy hiding-places, the gifts of all those free spirits who are at home in mountain, wood and solitude and who, like him, are, in their joyful, now thoughtful way, wanderers and philosophers. Born out of the mysteries of dawn, they ponder on how, between the tenth and the twelfth stroke of the clock, the day could present a face so pure, so light-filled, so cheerful and transfigured:- they seek the philosophy of the morning.

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

Douche-Bag, you keep up with those ploys and methods you use to avoid looking at yourself.

Douche-Bag, there are things far above personal survival. That you have sacrificed them all to your ephemeral existence and the inferior mind you are forced to endure until you die, makes all the more prone to accept whatever bullshit they give you to make you feel like you are more than a piece of genetic filth that failed to meet up to the environmental challenges.
And no, Douche-Bag, I am not talknig about social and cultural success.

AGE?
SEX?
LOCATION?

I, for one, want you to remain as you are: a degenerate, stupid, cowardly little stupid fuck

But why do you come here, then?
You already know. The "cup is on the table".

Homo, learning demands more than this.
You still have no fuckin' idea.

Quid pro Quo...you dumb fuck...

I think it is time to change the approach.

What does reality "free from personal tastes and social/cultural conventions" even look like? We cannot say because our capability to communicate is a matter of social convention. Language is social. However, that is not to say that we cannot establish that which corresponds to subjective tastes/preferences and that which obtains regardless of those. Rather, it is only to say that we must carefully parse out the differences.

I think that this sums up one of the issues here rather nicely. The difference between that which we create within our mind, and that which we become aware of is being sorely neglected here.

Now, it is not so much that I would be brazen or naive enough to say that "This is absolutely, for certain, the way things really are" or whatever, but rather - out of necessity alone - we presuppose that there is a way that things are. Humans possess innate potential that births curiosity about the things which appear to us(are given). We are innately rational(Kantian sense). We think about that which appears, and our language attempts to set it out, understand it, and communicate our thought/belief to others. Written language creates more and more complex distinctions/definitions which leads to more and more complex thought/belief about the world and/or ourselves that is simply not possible through thought/belief verbal language alone. Our capacity is limited. Understanding solely depends upon the kind of belief that we're talking about, specifically - the content. That is one aspect not being taken into proper consideration. Not everything we think, believe, and/or know is subject to the mind(thought/belief). Truth is one such thing(capitalized for grammatical purposes only).

This elaborates upon the former. More importantly, it sets out common language as a placeholder within thought/belief itself. In other words, language sets things/ideas out which are not purely empirical. Things which cannot be observed. Things that cannot be pointed towards. Knowledge is but one of those things, understanding is yet another, judgment but one more. All of these notions presuppose and constitute being thought/belief - yet another abstract representation. In order to come to understand how thought/belief works, we must look only to what must be necessarily presupposed in order for thought/belief to be formed. The model(for lack of a better word) must exhaust each and every thought/belief imaginable... there can be no exceptions. The negation of which requires only one example to the contrary. However, if successful, there is no stronger justification.

So the question becomes, how do we do such a thing? How can we determine what constitutes necessary and sufficient pre-conditions for thought/belief and language acquisition, if all we have is language, and we know that language is an abstraction of the world around us? Well that's easy. We need only to look at what it takes in order to acquire language. I mean, common language acquisition has necessary preconditions. I assert that those are universal common denominators, if by that I mean that they are necessarily extant even after removing all of the particulars. An example of a particular would be any conception of God, codes of conduct, and the like. We know that those are completely subject to the particular familial and cultural conditions. A belief in God is learned through language, therefore it cannot possibly be a necessary precondition for language acquisition. Thought/belief is a necessary precondition for language acquisition. Therefore, a belief in 'God' cannot be a necessary precondition for thought/belief formation. The same holds true for codes of conduct. So, we determine what constitutes being necessary and sufficient conditions for thought/belief and language acquisition by carefully examining the individual particulars, setting aside the common denominators, and looking at those.

Questions regarding the usefulness of such a project arise as well. I mean, one may hold that even if we successfully set forth a universal framework by which all thought/belief necessarily adheres, it would be so diluted as a result of removing the particulars, that it would lose all of it's utility. I need only to note here that utility is solely determined by subjective value assessment. It requires a goal(an end) and a method(a means) to attain that end. That necessitates pre-existing thought/belief, and in most cases, common language as well. It only follows then, that if we set out a set of universal, necessary, and sufficient conditions that are required in order to even be able to form thought/belief, in addition to being able to acquire common language, that we would have successfully set out that which all particulars necessarily converge upon and adhere to. We will have set out the universally extant conditions which give rise to all of the particulars. So, one who denies the utility of such a project, would be denying the importance of considering that which is equally necessary to all of humanity, in addition to denying that which necessarily grounds their own conceptions of what constitutes importance.

I'll leave it here for now.

Homo, learning demands more than this.
You still have no fuckin' idea.

Ahhh... black-eyed boy, but I do. Not only have I come to recognize what learning demands, but I also recognize what the root of your problem is - better than you do - ironically enough.

Tell me, ye repeater of those who string thoughts together better than you...

What does learning anything first require?

the goaturder wrote:

Mencken, H.L wrote:...

Freud, Sigmund wrote:...

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:...

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:...

Satyr wrote:These places are not about philosophy, besides some rudimentary recitation of another's views, most often a famous other, ...

creativesoul wrote:What does learning anything first require?

I'd go for "the wish or desire or reason to" and then "copying or imitating".

Douche-Bag wrote: Ahhh... black-eyed boy, but I do. Not only have I come to recognize what learning demands, but I also recognize what the root of your problem is - better than you do - ironically enough.

Tell me, ye repeater of those who string thoughts together better than you...

What does learning anything first require?

Excellent, Douche-Bag, that's the kind of shit I love to hear.
But you talk the talk without walking the walk.

Instead of promises, like the "rope" implied, perhaps a coward and a retard like you can follow it up with actions.

Tell us, Douche-Bag, because some are reading, what is belief?

Sex?
Age?
Location?

Until then, I give you my worse side. The side that makes you feel good.
Douche-Bag, you are presumably an old-fart with experience in life, instead I get posts becoming shorter and shorter. Douche-Bag, when one sees details the musings of a retard mean less and less.
Wait...you cannot be known, right? You are too complicated, right?

Make it challenging, you stupid fuck, and mix it up a bit.

--------------------

To the British Princess...
Girl, I know you are 6'6" 290 lbs and can beat the shit out of me, but still you remain a moron. An emasculated little bitch.

As for me quoting...as I said:
"When in Rome..." and..."I adapt"

Best you tell me about my divorce and how she left me.
I use what works, my British bitch, and authority figures have quite an impact amongst the herd.

I am a liar, remember?...and an actor.

I'm gonna fuck you 'till the cows, come home...no not your mom and sister...the "other" cows.

Ask me what "I' means now.

.






............................................










........................................









.