Philosophy Now Forum

And there's that misandrist cynicism I was waiting for.

What happened that made you such a man-hater?
Maybe my coherence requires a higher IQ.... or something rarer....honesty.

Did you lose it when you went out delivering gifts to the children?

Obviously a very old and bitter member in a new disguise. Pathetic Were you banned for life?

Here's a "coherent" paternalistic quote, from an authority figure you cannot pretend lacks coherence, so that you can dismiss and mock...

Jung, Carl wrote:Logos also contains the idea of the word; legein means to talk, to speak. It is another characteristic of man that he insists upon giving voice to an idea, designating it, giving a name, making a concept, expressing it, while woman, characterized more by Eros, can leave things in suspens; they have not necessarily to be SAID. A man says, “Why the devil don’t you say so?” but a woman doesn't need to say so, and usually she doesn’t. Or she says something else, and a man is always convinced that she has said just the thing she should not have said. Therefore, men’s ideas about women – about their talk, you know: gossip and afternoon tea, that intricate talk, the indirect vague way of women. If he carefully follows up such a conversation, however, he sees that she is like a spider weaving a web. The talk of women, being round-about, doesn’t consist of words but of spider webs, and they have a purpose different from that of a man. He means, “This is a chair, damn you, it is not a footstool.” This is interesting to him; he establishes this particular distinguishing factor. But it is not interesting to a woman: if this is not a chair, it is a footstool and one can sit on a footstool if there is no chair... To a woman, it doesn't matter so much. It only matters inasmuch as a difference must be covered up or related; a bridge must be made in between, and that is the weaving of plots.
The natural mind of a woman consists chiefly in weaving plots... in their natural mind they establish spider webs, threads leading from here to there which connect them up. Eventually a woman gets herself in it as well... They are natural spiders, because they can thus find out about connections. You see, that is Eros... Therefore, a man, in order to be definite, very often cuts a thing away from life; he does not understand its living function.

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 9:49 pm Obviously a very old and bitter member in a new disguise. Pathetic Were you banned for life?

Ha!!
And what's your excuse for the masks?

Still trying to prove a man's equal?
Still trying to pretend your looks don't make men pretend you are interesting?

You are weird. Perhaps that Satyr freakshow in one of his many guises?

Incoherent and weird....
This satyr guy keeps being mentioned.
Is he another "weird incoherent" toxic man, reminding you of what you can never be?

Isn't it odd that you found yourself in this place, putting on that old angry threatening biatch routine, for the children?

Why the mask, spider-woman?
You can understand my motives....but you have no reason other than evasion.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 9:53 pm Here's a "coherent" paternalistic quote, from an authority figure you cannot pretend lacks coherence, so that you can dismiss and mock...

Jung, Carl wrote:Logos also contains the idea of the word; legein means to talk, to speak. It is another characteristic of man that he insists upon giving voice to an idea, designating it, giving a name, making a concept, expressing it, while woman, characterized more by Eros, can leave things in suspens; they have not necessarily to be SAID. A man says, “Why the devil don’t you say so?” but a woman doesn't need to say so, and usually she doesn’t. Or she says something else, and a man is always convinced that she has said just the thing she should not have said. Therefore, men’s ideas about women – about their talk, you know: gossip and afternoon tea, that intricate talk, the indirect vague way of women. If he carefully follows up such a conversation, however, he sees that she is like a spider weaving a web. The talk of women, being round-about, doesn’t consist of words but of spider webs, and they have a purpose different from that of a man. He means, “This is a chair, damn you, it is not a footstool.” This is interesting to him; he establishes this particular distinguishing factor. But it is not interesting to a woman: if this is not a chair, it is a footstool and one can sit on a footstool if there is no chair... To a woman, it doesn't matter so much. It only matters inasmuch as a difference must be covered up or related; a bridge must be made in between, and that is the weaving of plots.
The natural mind of a woman consists chiefly in weaving plots... in their natural mind they establish spider webs, threads leading from here to there which connect them up. Eventually a woman gets herself in it as well... They are natural spiders, because they can thus find out about connections. You see, that is Eros... Therefore, a man, in order to be definite, very often cuts a thing away from life; he does not understand its living function.

Wht's your point? That's a coherent piece of writing.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 3:39 pm The common thread, connecting all of these psychotics, is their inability to be affected by reasoning.
They repeat the same behavior, as if the other said nothing to make them doubt their positions.

The other connecting thread, is their conviction that the other is trying to impose his perspective on them, because they are unable to offer counterarguments to what challenges their absolutist perspective.
The underlying position being all perspectives are equally plausible, because nobody is omniscient, and only power imposes certain perspectives on the powerless - a Marxist position, that can be traced back to Abrahamic dogma.
When their positions are threatened they must play the victim, fighting against power.
They feel bullied. victims of a fascist threatening their peace of mind.
Their potions could be postmodern cultural-Marxist, or Globalist Americanism, or Christian (Abrahamic) totalitarianism....
Doesn't matter.
Popularity is a factor. Not rationality.
They've assumed that existence must follow their reasoning, but they cannot explain how, so they automatically attack and repeat their defensive methods that prevent them from ever doubting themselves.

Unable to challenge another position, so as to preserve their own, they must accuse it of dogmatism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism....ironically their own often conceals these motives.
All must agree with my dogma, otherwise it is dogmatic, because I cannot contradict the challenges it posits to my dogmatism.

What do you find difficult to understand?
Do you want me to offer prose, in every post, so that you, and your kind, can piss on it?

I'm on a schedule, here.
My presence has an expiration date, dear.
I am not as 'free' to spew poison, as you are.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:08 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:03 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:34 pm

I don't think they're very similar

I guess they're similar in one way, they don't really engage in anything resembling conversation most of the time. But it's for very different reasons. Age doesn't because his brain is too fried, he doesn't know how to. VA doesn't because she's just so full of hate and anger.

I wasn't sniping at Veggie that time, but rather at Vestible Arquebus, who is, like age, happy to just do the same conversation over and over and over again. Also quite incapable of reading other people's writings with any intent of finding out what that other person is attempting to communicate.

Oh Sorry, of course, it would be VT if it were veggie.

You're right actually though about VA, VA is remarkably close to Age. A different style, but similar destination.

Age's style is, and will forever be, unmatched. The amount of energy it takes to behave like Age could power a small city.

Veggie's not wrong though, this is pistolero guy is obviously one of the nutters you didn't keep properly locked up at ILP right?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 11:13 am The endless questioning harpy.....Socratic method or a feminine tactic of annoying the other until he surrenders?

In this case....the 'other' that 'said so,' is you.
So, sarcasm is not your forte.
Insults are.
Quick to the draw.
Premature... interlocutor. He wants to get off fast. The impulse cannot be restrained.

Defensive, as fuck.
Brittle ego.

What are you even on about, and, who are you even talking to, here, EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 11:49 pm

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 11:13 am The endless questioning harpy.....Socratic method or a feminine tactic of annoying the other until he surrenders?

In this case....the 'other' that 'said so,' is you.
So, sarcasm is not your forte.
Insults are.
Quick to the draw.
Premature... interlocutor. He wants to get off fast. The impulse cannot be restrained.

Defensive, as fuck.
Brittle ego.

What are you even on about, and, who are you even talking to, here, EXACTLY?

In the middle there, he switches to accusing you of sexual dysfunction, the "Premature... interlocutor" bit is suggestive of premature ejaculation, which is the getting off fast and the unrestrainable impulse bit.

Glad I could help.

Some incoherent, stuff.... ignore me from now on....please.

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 11:18 am

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 11:13 am The endless questioning harpy.....Socratic method or a feminine tactic of annoying the other until he surrenders?

In this case....the 'other' that 'said so,' is you.
So, sarcasm is not your forte.
Insults are.
Quick to the draw.
Premature... interlocutor. He wants to get off fast. The impulse cannot be restrained.

Defensive, as fuck.
Brittle ego.

Age is a man who believes he's channeling the conscious universe. His comments are all the same--an insanity-inducing stream of pointless questions and condescending put-downs. He has driven several members to nervous breakdowns. Engage at your peril.

1. I do not believe what this one just claimed I do.

2. My comments are obviously not all the same.

3. My questions are very 'point' driven.

4. I have never put any one down, here.

5. Who are these, supposed and alleged, 'several members', here, that I have, supposedly and allegedly, driven to nervous breakdowns, exactly?

If 'this one' does not provide clarity to the point driven clarifying question, here, then this shows that each and every comment 'this one' made about 'me' are just pure Falsehoods, and thus just LIES.

Don't know...ask them.

I find you adorable.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:16 pm

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 11:23 am More than one, like him, on this forum.

There's broadly speaking two types of person who could end up here. One set are people with some sort of actual interest in philosophy as a field of study that covers questions about what we can know about some X, and what a certain type of proposition in regards to X could mean if we aren't in agreement on the prior question etc...

Imagine believing that studying a love-of-wisdom was even a possibility, let alone paying money or wanting to get, supposedly, 'taught' about a love-of-wisdom.

Either one has a love-of-wisdom, which must mean they have a love of wanting to become wiser, which, obviously, can come from having a desire, or a love, to want to just keep learning more, and anew. Which is more or less just what a so-called "philosopher" is, exactly, and, what every new born human baby is, exactly, anyway.

The ability to always keep learning more, and anew, is always within you human beings, you older human beings, however, just block and prevent 'this ability' with your mundane beliefs and assumptions, which all of them are by the way.

By the way what you human beings can know about some X is found out and discovered, almost instantaneously I will add, when you just define what X is, exactly. When this is done, and only when this is done, are you people then able to actually move on.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:16 pm The others are the people who think that there is some relationship between philosophy and wisdom that goes beyond a mere etymological accident (a demonstrable falsehood) and are here to explain how massively wise they are.

1. Why do you believe, absolutely, that absolutely each and every word, and each and all of their definitions, which obviously can and do relate somehow all came about and evolve by accident, only?

2. you say and claim, here, that the relationship between 'philosophy' and 'wisdom' is a demonstrable falsehood, so I challenge you to demonstrate this. If you do not, then what does this demonstrate about 'you' and/or your claim, here, exactly?

3. Was 'the one' demonstrating how, actually, it is the earth that revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, as was 'the belief' back in 'the days' when that was being said and shown, explaining how massively wise that one was, OR, was 'that one' just trying to express and explain an 'actual Truth', which went against the 'popular belief' at 'the time'?

See, not all, here, who are just trying to express and explain that there is, actually, more to the 'popular beliefs', in the days when this is being written, are all, here, to explain how massively wise they are. And, once again, you believing otherwise is preventing and blocking only you from discovering and seeing what the actual Truth is, here, exactly.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:16 pm This population is highly varied. Some are autistic like age whom you have already met. Some have narcissistic personality disorders and consider themselves the greatest philosopher of all time (currently we have around 7 of the world's single greatest ever philosopher, they don't argue with each other as much as you might expect). More than one show signs of psychopathy and at least one is most certainly a serial killer with an entire collection of beheaded truck stop prostitutes.

To complete your induction, somebody with Oppositional Defiance disorder will be along presently to start an argument with you over nothing. After that we will assign one of the multiple people we keep on staff whose deep and personal relationship with either a deity or the entire cosmos makes them the only possible source of THEE TrooTH, and then one final autist can tell you about something you urgently need to understand called an "FSK".

Only then will you be fully able to engage in important conversations about wokeness.

And then, as can be clearly noticed and seen, here, there are those that will use words but not actually saying any thing at all worthwhile. But, you knew this already, right?