Philosophy Now Forum

Satyr wrote:That's because I was not talking to you douche-bag.

You are trash...and to trash I talk the language of trash.

Please focus on being my proof reader and do not mind the meanings and the concepts.

Here you go, 'sadder'...even double barreled! shooting off your disgruntlement... "trash"... "douche-bag"..."retard". You couldn't keep things calm and rational, could you? As often as you speak of your potential and this 'alpha male' that resides in you, you crap out when you read something that does not connect with you... a sense of frustration that you unable to control. Keep your character deathly serious so nobody will take your words to be otherwise... or else, you may be viewed a failure. tsk, tsk...

And yet you add at the end:

I certainly love the world as it is...and I describe it so...digging it our [sic] of the pollution retards, like you, try to hide it [sic] under.
I like the world, nature, so much that I do not want you to change...even if a retard, like you, could.
You make my life easier and you distinguish me

.
If you truly love the world as you say you do, why discriminate against those who also are participants on the same lovely earth?

As far as not wanting ME to change... even IF I could..? Should I thank you or send you a get well card?

So what I had written had picked up your fragile ego and tossed it up on a high horse, so high as to not be in touch with your reality. I'd expect much more out of you than that.

You are winded...winding....winding...

Ha!!!
The nerve has been struck...now it's all about watching the feces rise to the top, trying to soil the world with its stench.

7 billion people must all be right.
Should we vote on what is real?

Satyr wrote:You are winded...winding....winding...

Ha!!!
The nerve has been struck...now it's all about watching the feces rise to the top, trying to soil the world with its stench.

7 billion people must all be right.
Should we vote on what is real?

I'm sure others will agree that this post is not cohesive in the least.

perhaps you've been hitting that 'fine wine' of yours to settle your nerves...?

calm down. get over yourself.

We'll have to vote on that.
Majority decides the truth.

7 billion people must all be right....or if many believe in stupidities then there must be some truth in them.
What is current, modern, is automatically superior...one need not even argue on its behalf; just call it modern...or a term implying it like: cutting-edge....current....recent...advanced....
Therefore what is in the future must be Utopia...as we advance towards heaven.

History teaches us that this is so.

Satyr wrote:We'll have to vote on that.
Majority decides the truth.

7 billion people must all be right....or if many believe in stupidities then there must be some truth in them.
What is current, modern, is automatically superior...one need not even argue on its behalf; just call it modern...or a term implying it like: cutting-edge....current....recent...advanced....
Therefore what is in the future must be Utopia...as we advance towards heaven.

History teaches us that this is so.

Thx for the rewrite. Better. Altho I'm not clear on the voting comment.

Re: "Majority decides the truth." I disagree. The majority holds sway over their collective needs and even in some cases their wants. But truth must not rely on anything less than truth itself in order for it to be truth. Neither a majority nor a minority can interpret truth for others less the truth be diminished or even negated.

continuing... first: 7+billion people and indeed, some are not educated... no schooling... cost prohibitive. let's pass judgement on the unfortunate amongst us. very brave thing to do..? two words: 'get real.'

Modern is equated to the Now for it is the Now that is the most modern we can be. Living in the past leaves no room for Now which is eternal in and of itself. Conversely, living in the future is futile as the future by definition is not the past nor the present... it's hope or desire... an emotional imagining to further instill that hope for those that find the present unlivable.

History doesn't do the teaching. The learned who spend their lives researching history, (as does a philosopher reading of others in the past and, infrequently, the present), will be the ones doing the teaching, the passing on of historic information gathered thru their love of the subject. One needn't believe a historian any more than one needs to believe a philosopher. That is the fool's way. But it is often the choice of those who do not have either the time or talent to do the research themselves. Those I would not call fools, as if my own judgement would have any merit with them..

Texan Turd wrote:
Re: "Majority decides the truth." I disagree. The majority holds sway over their collective needs and even in some cases their wants. But truth must not rely on anything less than truth itself in order for it to be truth. Neither a majority nor a minority can interpret truth for others less the truth be diminished or even negated.

Agreed...nobody knows shit.
We are all equally ignorant.
Finally equality through a negative.

Douche-bag...nature works on superior/inferior...not on absolutes.
No absolute knowing (omniscience) and no absolute ignorance, you pathetic southern belle.

Texan Turd wrote:continuing... first: 7+billion people and indeed, some are not educated... no schooling... cost prohibitive. let's pass judgement on the unfortunate amongst us. very brave thing to do..? two words: 'get real.'

Agreed...because knowledge is understanding, and getting educated means you are smarter.
You are suffering from Americanism, Turd.
You've bought into a lie.
A computer is the most educated machine on earth, it can hold tomes of encyclopedic information, is it smart?
a parrot can be educated, traiend, to speak, does it understand the words coming out of its beak?

Texan Turd wrote:History doesn't do the teaching.

Douche-bag, experience is a form of history.
Knowledge, you retarded nit-wit, is codified history.
Douche-bag there are second-hand experiences (history, knowledge, education) and then there is first-hand experience.
Turds like you are totally governed by second-hand experiences...this is why you are so dependent on others, on authorities, and why you have no clue about the subject matter.

You have no clue do ya Texas Turd?
You are lost in your stupidity.

Remember, Turd, you can at any time call me a racist or a sexist or an anti-Semite and claim a moral victory....like the retard that you are.

I state: " The majority holds sway over their collective needs and even in some cases their wants. But truth must not rely on anything less than truth itself in order for it to be truth. Neither a majority nor a minority can interpret truth for others less the truth be diminished or even negated."

and you come back with this -

Satyr wrote:Agreed...nobody knows shit.
We are all equally ignorant.
Finally equality through a negative.

Douche-bag...nature works on superior/inferior...not on absolutes.
No absolute knowing (omniscience) and no absolute ignorance, you pathetic southern belle.

'Nobody knows shit... we are all equally ignorant... nature works on superior/inferior ... no absolute knowing...'

None of that relates to what I wrote. Are you able to follow a thread without choking on your own venom?

Crissakes, Marcello, you're once again overly anxious to say shit just to hear yourself. As I've said before you are ill-equipped for social discourse and this is once again proof of that.

Satyr wrote:Agreed...because knowledge is understanding, and getting educated means you are smarter.
You are suffering from Americanism.
You've bought into a lie.
A computer is the most educated machine on earth, it can hold tomes of encyclopedic information, is it smart?
a parrot can be educated, traiend [sic], to speak, does it understand the words coming out of its beak?

And I assume this incoherent drivel is somehow related to what I said..???

Cute little comments tossed about in a mixed salad interpretation of what? "knowledge is understanding... educated means you are smarter... I'm suffering from Americanism... I bought into a lie... is a computer smart... does a parrot understand what's coming out of it's beak.... What are you attempting to convey to me? Do you understand that question?

Stick to the topic if you want to make a point. How friggin confused can a man get? Unbelievable! You love talking but have a very difficult time listening/reading.

... and then I say:

mtmynd1 wrote:History doesn't do the teaching.

... to which you respond in your semi-conscious stupor -

sadder wrote: Douche-bag, experience is a form of history.
Knowledge, you retarded nit-wit, is codified history.
Douche-bag there are second-hand experiences (history, knowledge, education) and then there is first-hand experience.
Turds like you are totally governed by second-hand experiences...this is why you are so dependent on others, on authorities, and why you have no clue about the subject matter.

Here we go again: douche-bag (fond of that one lately, eh? don't wear it out!)...retarded nit-wit (passe, getting old)...turds (really friggin old... time to use a little creativity, eh?)... and a really screwy remark: "this is why you are so dependent on others, on authorities, and why you have no clue about the subject matter."

You sound like you're friggin daft... lost it... can't find your way. I'm dependent because of what I wrote? Great logic. You should be real proud of that one, kid... hang it on your wall so others can see it... so they can see how completely confused you are.

And you have the audacity to write this: "You are lost in your stupidity." Really? listen, you are acting like a total fool. No credibility left. Incoherent answers seemingly pulled out of your ass.

And let's not forget this final remark -

Remember, you can at any time call me a racist or a sexist or an anti-Semite and claim a moral victory....like the retard that you are.

Why would I want to call you anything like that? You're a severe misanthrope who is bitter and unable to socialize without losing your temper... but the other ones...? Those are from others keen observations. You're a hit, "sadder"!

Who said that?

Satyr wrote:
You have no clue, do ya.

I don't need any clues to know how tragic an individual you truly are.. it's written all over your avatar.

You are obsessed with my avatar...as any modern, pseudo-intellectual, pop-cultural, automaton would be.
I ignore your avatar, as the result if this simplicity/stupidity.

You seem obsessed with appearances...and my own choice of avatars.
you are obsessed with why and how,...and what makes me tick?
It's a way of dealing with fear; with insecurity. I cannot fault you for that.
You cannot fathom abstraction.
You are governed by looks, though you profess to be above them.
You would like to think so.

I suspect that you are easily impressed with immediate impressions and totally governed by pop-culture.
A pretense, fake as it might be, has a profound affect upon you. you denounce appearances as s"superficial', as a way of dealing with your own appearance and the effect it has upon others, but you are still governed by it, because you cannot escape its premises. You only denounce its affects upon you, but you cannot overcome its foundations.
You are torn - schizophrenic - part of you buys into the ideal, is soothed and comforted by it...but you are still a victim of it and a contributor to it.

You have seen the movie - even if it is diametrically other than the book - but you have not read the book. If you have or if you have not does not matter; the movie will dominate your sensuality. you are totally given in0t the sensual...though you tell yourself and you pretend to be above it....unaffected by it - an enlightened one.
You are a female, through and through.

If and when you do read the book by Harrison you must ask yourself:

- Why is Hannibal born with six fingers?

- Why does he display traits above the average?

- Why does he devour those you would call "human" and what types does he kill, and what does he devour of them?
Why is he, despite the gore, the most noble part of the movie?

- Why does he only attack, or bully, the bullies in an institutions?
What is a "bully"?

- Why does the Hollywood version, meant to be sold to morons, like you, differ from the book version?
Why does the movie differ from the book?

Before I waste my own valuable time replying to some this, "sadder", let me compliment you on actually finishing a reply in toto by using only (2?) words for trash bashing. Considering how long your post is, that is quite the accomplishment... pleasant change... although knowing you, I realize it won't last.

Moving on -

Satyr wrote:You are obsessed with my avatar...as any modern, pseudo-intellectual, pop-cultural, automaton would be.
I ignore your avatar, as the result if this simplicity/stupidity.

Obsessed is an exaggeration, something so many use either needlessly or recklessly. I do look at others avatars but only as a curiosity or occasional admiration for some I find quite interesting. Of course, your own avatar is an attention getter but so is your crudeness... your base misanthropy compliments the avatar. But as you know, I do find it rather amusing believing that you think that is a good representation of yourself.

Satyr wrote:You seem obsessed with appearances...
you are obsessed with why and how,...and what makes me tick?

It's good that you ended this sentence with a I must answer I'm a student of hu'manity... a life-long observer of the condition and reactions of the species. You are no exception to my observational skills I've acquire over many years. As far as my being obsessed with appearances... I am taken by beauty. But most physical appearances, unless I happen across the rare symmetrical features that grab the attention of most healthy people, I find after all these years rather repetitious. It is only that repetitiveness must first be observed as being so before moving on.

What makes you tick? I've already given an extraordinary amount of time in answering... much more than I'd spend on most people. But I feel you have something to learn... how others (may) interpret your activities. So I won't dwell on that any longer on this thread.

Satyr wrote:It's a way of dealing with fear; with insecurity. I cannot fault you for that.

by "it's" I assume you're referring to appearances and/or what makes you tick..? That's been satisfactorily answered above.

Satyr wrote:You cannot fathom abstraction.

I'm an artist and I create abstractions, having been heavily influenced by other practitioners of the art, i.e. Kandinsky, (the father of abstraction), Dali (who isn't in some way?), the prolific Picasso has influenced thousands including myself, Mondrian, Miro, Klimt... the later modernists deKooning, Rothko and Jackson Pollack... recently I find the works of Dan Namingha (a Native American) to be fascinating.

So when you say -

Satyr wrote:]You are governed by looks, though you profess to be above them

.

It's what you would like to think... Any artist of any medium is 'governed by, not necessarily 'looks' but more accurately, "composition"... the end result of a balance which gives reason and purpose to any art.

Satyr wrote:I suspect that you are easily impressed with immediate impressions and totally governed by pop-culture.

Again, a willful exaggeration on your part for an otherwise fair observation. Remove the adverbs 'easily' and 'immediate' and even 'totally' as I'm not known for such absolutes, and I may then not call you wrong. It is important to know that pop-culture is not so much my forte as it once was. My age has prevented me from appreciating so much of the art from our current times.

Satyr wrote:A pretense, fake as it might be, has a profound affect upon you. you denounce appearances as s"superficial', as a way of dealing with your own appearance and the effect it has upon others, but you are still governed by it, because you cannot escape its premises. You only denounce its affects upon you, but you cannot overcome its foundations.
You are torn - schizophrenic - part of you buys into the ideal, is soothed and comforted by it...but you are still a victim of it and a contributor to it.

Sorry, Satyr, but this entire assumption is simply that, an assumption that is based upon no solid foundation.. Schizophrenic? Are you attempting to hurl insults at me with that one? Please, don't embarrass me with that level of your skills in observation.

Satyr wrote:You have seen the movie - even if it is diametrically other than the book - but you have not read the book. If you have or if you have not does not matter; the movie will dominate your sensuality. you are totally given in0t the sensual...though you tell yourself and you pretend to be above it....unaffected by it - an enlightened one.

Satyr wrote:You are a female, through and through.

... and you are my bitch...? Come on, you can do better than that...

Satyr wrote:If and when you do read the book by Harrison you must ask yourself:

- Why is Hannibal born with six fingers?

- Why does he display traits above the average?

- Why does he devour those you would call "human" and what types does he kill, and what does he devour of them?
Why is he, despite the gore, the most noble part of the movie?

- Why does he only attack, or bully, the bullies in an institutions?
What is a "bully"?

- Why does the Hollywood version, meant to be sold to morons, like you, differ from the book version?
Why does the movie differ from the book?

I really have no time in my schedule to indulge myself in a fictional novel, not that I'm sure you find it a strong and powerful read.

You are obviously totally captivated by it and borrowing from you, "I suspect that you are easily impressed with immediate impressions and totally governed by (a now passed) pop-culture", i.e. this book was once current and influential in the pop-culture of the times. Your attachment to the book and the author's story is still as new today as it was with you when it was first released, it's rather obvious. And although "Silence of the Lambs" was written by Tom Harris some 24 years ago, that matters little to the fans who read more into the novel than Mr Harris intended. Timelessness has a sense of the sacred to those who refuse to allow the past to remain in the past.